JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. - By this review petition, the petitioner has prayed that the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 91 of 2010 (R/C) may be recalled.? 2. As far as the Review Petition is concerned, 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 record. 3. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. 4. The Hon. Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitra Devi observed that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a rider on the power of the Court, which passed the order. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. On the aforesaid acid test, it is settled position that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 5. In the instant review petition, there is no mistake on the face of the record but the petitioner wants to keep the controversy alive for one reason or another. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record and it appears that he wants re-hearing of the case under the garb of the application, which is not permissible. So, the review petition has no merit. 7. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record and it appears that he wants re-hearing of the case under the garb of the application, which is not permissible. So, the review petition has no merit. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given at least two months' time to vacate the premises in question, to which Sri R. N. Tilhari learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has no objection provided the tenant will pay penal rent in advance @Rs.1500/- per month. 8. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to give an undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 15.11.2010 and will pay the penal rent @ Rs.1500/- per month? in advance to the opposite party. 9. It is clarified that if the tenant will not vacate the premises in question peacefully within the time prescribed by this Court, the concerned SHO is directed to provide police assistance on request to the opposite party for vacating the premises in question as per law. 10. Thus, the review petition is disposed of.