JUDGMENT 1. - The facts leading to this application under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment dated 20.02.2008 passed in Civil First Appeal No. 142/2001, Ghanshyam Das v. Chand Behari & Ors. , are that the plaintiffs, the defendant No.2 and Chagan Lal, had shares in House No.1796 in a Haveli situated near Peepla House, Chokdi Topkhana Desh, Rasta Khuntetan, Jaipur City. 2. By a decree of partition dated 16.12.1964, a Mahal situated in northern part of Haveli on second floor came in share of Bhagwan Sahai, the father of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 sold the house, fully described in Para No.4 of the plaint, to the defendant no.1 for Rs. 35,000/- without informing the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit on the basis of their right of preemption against Ghanshyam Das, the petitioner, and Moti Bai. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned Trial Court framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, decreed the same on 11.04.2001. The petitioner assailed the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal in this Court. After hearing the parties, the same was dismissed on 20.02.2008. The petitioner has sought review of the said judgment. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an apparent mistake on the face of the judgment as the property in question is a commercial property and as such, the right of preemption is not available. He has also submitted that the defendant (appellant) became co-sharer in the property and the provisions of Section 15 of the Preemption Act have not been considered. He has contended that it has been wrongly recorded that the defendant tried to create false evidence. He has also contended that the right of preemption is the weakest right. 5. The Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner cannot re-agitate the points raised in appeal and decided by this Hon'ble Court. He has strongly opposed the application. 6. I have carefully considered the matter and examined the relevant record. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the scope of jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is very limited. The petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by this Court while deciding the appeal. He has strongly opposed the application. 6. I have carefully considered the matter and examined the relevant record. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the scope of jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is very limited. The petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by this Court while deciding the appeal. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court while deciding the appeal shows that the case of the parties was thoroughly considered and thereafter, findings were recorded. The judgment deciding the appeal is a lengthy judgment running into 16 pages and clearly shows that all the disputed questions were duly considered. 8. 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error on the face of the record. While the former can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, the present review petition, being without any force, is dismissed.Review Petition Dismissed. *******