Honble SHRIMAL, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the Board of Revenue on 28.3.2001, by which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that a suit by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners was presented before learned Asstt. Collector, Bhinmal on the basis that the disputed land comprising of khasra Nos. 283 area 8 bighas 6 biswas, 286 area 15 bighas 12 biswas, khasra No. 285 area 10 biswas was entered in the khatedari of the grand-father of the rival parties. This land subsequently did not continue in the names of the descendants. Instead of that this land was entered in the name of the father of the petitioners-defendants. This suit was decreed by learned Asstt. Collector, Bhinmal on 30.3.2000 and the disputed land was recorded as half-half between the rival parties. An appeal was preferred against this order and learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhinmal. Again a second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the learned Division Bench found that not only the findings were concurrent but also it was very clear from the record and evidence before the courts below that the disputed land was ancestral land and this land was wrongly recorded in the name of father of the petitioners. The ancestral land could not have been recorded in the name of one son of the grand-father. This fact had also been admitted. This is the review petition against the judgment dated 28.3.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contentions of the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners is that in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1965 SC 1506 it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove his suit but he failed doing that he also supported his case by AIR 1953 SC 253. It was also argued that learned Division Bench in appreciating correct legal and factual position and the erroneous view taken by learned Asstt. Collector and Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority was upheld without going into the proper facts. Evidence was misread and ignored and the suit was full of contradictions, hence the suit could never have been decreed and the orders of learned Asstt. Collector and Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority was upheld without going into the proper facts. Evidence was misread and ignored and the suit was full of contradictions, hence the suit could never have been decreed and the orders of learned Asstt. Collector and Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority were full of irreparable mistakes. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contentions of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners is that the scope of review is very limited and in this case there are no grounds of review. The decisions of the three Courts are concurrent and no interference can be made at the level of review petition. There is no mistake apparent on the face of he record and as such this review needs to be rejected. It was also argued that Honble Supreme Court has held that decision may be erroneous but it cannot give a ground for review. In this case facts and legal position have not been misconceived and all the evidence has been properly appreciated. Once the decision passed without ignoring the relevant evidence then the view taken by the Courts cannot create a ground of review. 5. Having heard learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and having carefully perused the review petition and having carefully examined the decision given by this Bench. I come to the following conclusions:– 6. Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court have held in several matters that the scope of review is not an instrument for re-examination of the facts and it cannot be utilised as an instrument for re-rewriting the judgment. the scope of review does not provide an opportunity of an extra appeal. It has been held that even then the scope of review is not attracted. In this respect it is important to rely on the authorities of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court. 7. As per the rules the scope of review is very limited and review is not a method of re-examination of a judgment. It does not even give any scope to the Court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same Court. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. It does not even give any scope to the Court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same Court. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC page 455 clearly held that the error apparent on the face of the record should be such which should strike immediately looking at the face of the record and which does not require any long drawn process of reasoning or examination of law. The Courts are not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence but only restrict themselves for correction of the mistakes which are visible on the face of the record. In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. Orissa State AIR 2000 SC 85 , the Honble Apex Court has held that the power is not absolute and it is subject to restrictions indicate in Order 47 CPC. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. The mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning and it is distinct from erroneous decision. Rehearing the matter or detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of review. Jurisdiction of review cannot be used as an appellate jurisdiction in disguise Honble Supreme Court in State of Harryana Vs. Mohinder Singh, 2003(1) WLC (SC) page 499 considered the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is reproduced here:- "Civil Procedure Code, O. 47 Rule 1 — Scope —Hearing of review does not mean giving one more chance for rehearing matter already disposed of — High Court in hearing review as if it was rehearing whole petition overstepped its limits — Order of High Court set aside and original order restored." 8. Finally it would be relevant to refer to RRT 2005(1) page 545 in which Honble Supreme Court has decided a principle that "view taken in judgment maybe erroneous but cannot be a ground for review". 9. Finally it would be relevant to refer to RRT 2005(1) page 545 in which Honble Supreme Court has decided a principle that "view taken in judgment maybe erroneous but cannot be a ground for review". 9. Nothing new has been pointed out in the review petition which can suggest that the judgment dated 28.3.2001 passed by this Bench was beyond jurisdiction and since the order was passed with proper jurisdiction; hence it cannot be argued that the order was passed beyond jurisdiction as such in circumstances when the order is not ab-initio void then the scope of jurisdiction will remain restricted to the mistake which are apparent on the face of the record. In this case there are no such mistakes and there is no scope of review to be entertained. 10. The authorities produced by the petitioners were respectfully studied and it was found that these authorities are not directly relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case because the plaintiff has proved his suit beyond doubt, instead the authorities mentioned above including that the Honble Supreme Court are directly relevant on the ground of review in this case. 11. As such this review petition does not justify that it should be entertained and admitted and there are no grounds for acceptance of review petition. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed. Pronounced.