Judgment : K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The above review applications are filed to review the judgment dated 3. 2001 made in A.S.Nos.262 and 264 of 1997, which were filed against the judgment and decree of the Reference Court made in L.A.O.P.Nos.3 and 6 of 1993 dated 19. 1995. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants submitted that this Court has to review the order on the premise that while disposing of the appeals, the review petitioners were not properly represented though the petitioners were represented by counsel that there are errors apparent on the face of the orders in taking into consideration of Ex.A2 a document dated 18. 1986 as a document reflecting the real market value with reference to 4(1) Notification dated 6. 1989. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.4,176/- per cent has been considerably reduced to Rs.1,625/- per cent. The learned counsel has also advanced the argument as to the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Division Bench, which is in a way rearguing the appeals once again in spite of the fact that the judgment under review was rendered on merits of the case taking into consideration of the documents marked and the evidence adduced though the counsel for the appellant was not present. 3. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the materials placed on record. 4. We are of the view that the scope of exercising the review power is very limited. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits and the review petitioners have not been properly represented at that time of arguing the case or the counsel who argued on behalf of the review petitioners has not placed any relevant materials before the Court. That would be the province of a court of appeal. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court or crept in the judgment and decree which is appealed again. 5. The Supreme Court in the decision of PARSION DEVI VS. SUMITRA DEVI reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 has held thus: "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of KERALA SEB VS. HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS & HYDROPOWER LIMITED reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651 held at paragraph No.10 as follows:- ."..... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record to permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." 7. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record to permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." 7. Usual reference can also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HARIDAS DAS VS. USHARANI AND BANNIK reported in AIR 2006 SCW 1771 . 8. Similar provisions which provide for rectification or reviewing of the orders on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record i.e., Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 51 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 have been considered by the Supreme Court in T.S. BALARAM, INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. VOLKART ROTHERS, 1971(82) ITR 50 at page 58 (Supreme Court), and NORTHERN INDIA CATERORS VS. LT.GOVERNOR, 1980(45) STC 212. A much volume of a judicial interpretation has been gathered around the interpretation of the expression "apparent from the face on record" occurring in the above Section. The one uniform principle that runs through the catena of decisions is that "a mistake apparent on record" must be an obvious and apparent mistake and not something, which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. An error which is not self evident and is to be deducted by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 9. As already stated, the judgment sought to be reviewed is rendered on merit after taking into consideration of all the documents and a cogent and clear reasoning has also been given to the particular document of Ex.A2 rather than Ex.A1. In addition, to the order which is passed as early as 3. 2001, the same is sought to be reviewed by filing a review application in the year 2007. 10. For all these reasons, we are not able to countenance the argument for entertaining the review applications and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs.