Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the applicant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the application which seeks to review/ recall the order, dated 2-5-2003, passed by this Court in C. R. No. 938 of 2000. ( 2. ) IN my opinion, when I peruse the impugned order in the context of the challenge laid in the review application, I do not find any ground much less ground contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC so as to recall the order. The only difference that I could notice in the matter is that original matter (Revision) was argued by one lawyer and review was argued by different lawyer. ( 3. ) THIS Court has taken into account those facts which were urged and dealt with the learned Trial Judge out of which revision arose and then rendered a finding on those issues which were actually urged by the applicant who was represented by a lawyer. It is a reasoned order and takes into account the issues urged and taken, ( 4. ) A wrong finding is no ground to see review. Equally well settled an illegal or erroneous finding, whether on facts or in law, is also no ground to recall the order in exercise of powers conferred under Order 47 Rule 1. Such arguments are to be raised in appeal, which in this case the applicant did when he filed SLP in Supreme Court, but failed in, limine (Annexure P-2 ). ( 5. ) A right to file a review is a creature of statute. The party aggrieved has to make out a case squarely falling within the fore corners of Order 47 Rule 1 and none else. An error apparent on facts is a sine qua non and none else. Their Lordships of Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP (Annexure P- 2) simply noted the statement of applicant that he wishes to file a review, but that does not mean nor it can be construed to mean that the review filed by the applicant has to be entertained and should also be allowed on merits dehors the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In other words, the right to file and entertain the review is governed by the statute and not by observation contained in judicial order. In other words, the right to file and entertain the review is governed by the statute and not by observation contained in judicial order. I can not, therefore, accept this submission of learned Counsel for the applicant when attempt was made to urge. ( 6. ) WHAT was being urged should have been urged at the time of hearing of main case rather than in support of review. ( 7. ) I, thus, do not find any error apparent on its face. Review fails and is dismissed in limine.