Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment and order dated 19.8.2003 passed in Second Appeal No. 108 of 2001 by which the appeal has been dismissed under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that there is no merit in the second appeal, it is concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue the case at length pointing out various infirmities, factual as well as legal, in the judgment of the trial court as also in the judgment of the first appellate court in order to show that, as a matter of fact, substantial question of law was involved and there was merit in the second appeal and accordingly the judgment and order dated 19.8.2003 ought to be reviewed by this Court. 4. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not sitting in second appeal over the judgment of the first appellate court and what has been invoked is for this Court to exercise its review jurisdiction with respect to a judgment and order passed earlier where no merit was found in the second appeal. 5. In this regard, learned counsel for the opposite parties has rightly brought to the notice of this court the scope of a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas etc. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors.: AIR 2000 SC 1650 , in para 57 of which it has been laid down as follows: "Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In T.C. Basappa vs. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 it was held ......... it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 it was held ......... it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. Mr. Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, C.J. in Batuk K. Vyas vs. Surat Borough Municipality: AIR 1953 Bom. 133 (R) that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefinitness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case." 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Devraju Pillai vs. Sellayya Pillai: AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1160 in which it was held as follows: " If the party was aggrieved by the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge sitting in Second Appeal the appropriate remedy for the party was to file an appeal against that judgment of the learned Single Judge. A remedy by way of an application for review was entirely misconceived and we are sorry to say that the learned Single Judge who entertained the application totally exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the review and upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge, merely because he took a different view on a construction of the document." 7. A remedy by way of an application for review was entirely misconceived and we are sorry to say that the learned Single Judge who entertained the application totally exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the review and upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge, merely because he took a different view on a construction of the document." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, sought to defend by referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pandit Dhana Mali vs. Bhimabai (D) Th. LRs.: 2005(5) SCALE 263, in para-1 of which it has been held as follows: " An application seeking review of the judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal has been dismissed on the ground not maintainable. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that as against a judgment in second appeal "a remedy by way of application of review is entirely misconceived". This proposition seems to have been too widely stated by the learned Judge. We clarify that a judgment in second appeal may also be open to review subject to a ground therefor being available within the meaning of Rule 1 Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code." 8. It can hardly be ruled out that an application for review of a judgment passed even in second appeal would be maintainable as held by the Apex.Court but the said application can only be entertained on one of the grounds which are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been clearly held that the error must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched, that is to say, it must be an error of inadvertence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to show the error in the judgment and order under review by referring to judgment of the first appellate court and that of the trial court and various other exhibits and documents brought by him on the record. Any such examination of the record of the first appellate Court and the trial court would amount to making an enquiry in order to come to a conclusion regarding the errors in the order dated 19.8.2003 passed by this court earlier. Any such examination of the record of the first appellate Court and the trial court would amount to making an enquiry in order to come to a conclusion regarding the errors in the order dated 19.8.2003 passed by this court earlier. Such a course of action is not permissible as clearly laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court in Devaraju Pillais case, in such circumstances as at present, the proper recourse of the petitioner would have been not by filing an application for review but to file an appeal against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this court does not find any merit in the review application and it is accordingly dismissed.