JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This review petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to review/modify the judgment dated 5.3.1999 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 5157/94 by quashing the order of termination dated 15.5.1993 and allowing the petitioner to be reinstated in service. 2. The background facts of the case are that the review-petitioner while serving while serving as Lecturer in Logic and Philosophy in Devaraya Nayapalli College, his services were terminated on 15.5.1993. Being dissatisfied with the order of termination, the review-petitioner had filed appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa. The petitioner challenging the said order of termination also approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 4958/93. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.8.93 with direction to the Director, Higher Education to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner pending before him. On 22.3.94, the Director, Higher Education dismissed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the order of termination. The petitioner challenged the order of the Director, Higher Education before this Court in O.J.C. No. 5157 of 1994. This Court vide order dated 5.3.1999 dismissed the writ petition by upholding the order of the Director. This review petition has been filed for review of the said order. 3. Mr. Kalyan Patnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review-petitioner vehemently argued that this Court by its judgment dated 05.03.1999 has confirmed the order of the appellate authority on a wrong presumption that the order of termination passed against the petitioner was passed by a legally constituted Governing Body of the College. He further argued that the order of termination so passed by the alleged Governing Body and communicated by its Secretary one Shri Bhagyadhar Jagadev is without jurisdiction. No resolution was ever passed selecting Shri Jagadev to be the Secretary of the so-called Governing Body. In support of such contention, Mr. Patnaik relied upon copies of the order No. 31406 dated 12.6.89 (Annexure-5), order No. 37673 dated 7.7.89 (Annexure-6), the judgment dated 13.5.91 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1372/90 (Annexure-7), the report of the Additional Director (Annexure-8), the order dated 7.10.93 (Annexure-9), the judgment dated 4.7.2003 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 4581/ 91 with a batch of cases (Annexure-10) and the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 119/96 dated 29.4.2004 (Annexure-11). He submitted that as the above documents were not available with the petitioner, the same could not be placed before the Hon'ble Court at the time of argument. Mr. Patnaik, further argued that the appellate authority without causing any inquiry into the matter confirmed the order of termination to support the College authorities. As the termination of the petitioner is a simplicitor one without any stigma in infraction of statutory provision, the impugned judgment dated 5.3.1999 should be reviewed/modified allowing reinstatement of the petitioner in service by quashing the order of termination. 4. A perusal of the averments made in O.J.C. No. 5157/94 as well as Review No. 37/99 reals that the prayers in the writ petition and review petition are the one and same In the impugned judgment dated 5.3.1999 passed in O.J.C. No. 5157/94, this Court in a well discussed judgment confirmed the order of the Director, Higher Education who upheld the order of termination passed against the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner that his services were terminated by an illegally constituted Governing Body was taken into consideration both by the appellate authority as well as by this Court. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 5.3.1999 passed by this Court sought to be reviewed is as follows : 28.... Stand taken before the Director during the course of hearing of the appeal as evident from the memorandum of appeal is significant. It has been stated that the Governing Body was not functioning, and was illegally constituted. It is evident from the prayer in them memorandum of appeal which reads as fellows : Hence I pray that you will be good hand enough to grant my application by reinstating me in my service and by giving a perfect G.B. by which I as well as the whole staff will be grateful to you. Considering these aspects, the Director held that the order of termination was in order. 29. The writ application is without any merit in view of the position in law as elaborately dealt with above, and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Moreover, the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to why the orders and judgments passed under Annexure-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 prior to the date on which the impugned judgment was passed could not be available to him at the time of argument. Moreover, the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to why the orders and judgments passed under Annexure-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 prior to the date on which the impugned judgment was passed could not be available to him at the time of argument. Further, the judgment dated 4.7.2003 (Annexure-10) and the judgment passed in Title Suit dated 29.4.2000 (Annexure-11), which were passed subsequent to the date on which the impugned judgment was passed, cannot be taken as a ground for review. 5. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to Section 144 read with Order 47 Rule 1 if the CPC and some of the decisions of the apex Court. Section 144 read with Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review petition. The limitations are that the party filing the applications for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after exercise of due diligence, which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or order was passed, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or 'for any other sufficient reason'. The aforesaid limitations are prescribed in a crystal clear language. The expression 'any other sufficient reason' contained in Order 47, Rule 1, means 'sufficient reason' which is analogous to those specified immediately to it in the provision of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In Chhajju Ram v. Neki & Ors., AIR 1922 PC 112 , it was held by the Privy Council that analogy must be discovered between two grounds specified therein namely, (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; and (ii) error apparent on the face of record, before entertaining the review on any other sufficient ground. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3737 , the apex Court deprecated the practice of filing review application observing that review, by no means, is an appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if application has been filed for clarification, modification or review of the judgment and order finally passed for the reason that a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or by pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a review application. In Subhash Vs. In Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another the apex Court emphasized that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances failing within the prescribed limits that the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review. In the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to reopen the case and to gain a full-fledged innings for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments advanced by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even in the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the Court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved by a judgment, it must approach the higher Court but entertaining are view to reconsider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. The apex Court in Rajender Kumar and Others Vs. Rambhai and Others held that the limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jain Studios Limited through its President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. held that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A review of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection only in exceptional cases. In Devaraju Pillai Vs. Sellayya Pillai, the apex Court held that if a party is aggrieved by a judgment of a Court, the proper remedy for such party is to file an appeal against that judgment. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection only in exceptional cases. In Devaraju Pillai Vs. Sellayya Pillai, the apex Court held that if a party is aggrieved by a judgment of a Court, the proper remedy for such party is to file an appeal against that judgment. A remedy by way of an application for review is entirely misconceived and if a Court entertained the application for review then it has totally exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the review merely because it takes a different view in construction of the document. 6. In the above facts situation, no case for review under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is made out. The well-known parameters of review, as indicated above, having not been fulfilled, there is no scope for review. The Review petition is accordingly dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed