1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the order dated 03.08.2012 passed in SWP No. 33/2012, on the grounds taken in the memo of review petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the averments made in the review petition as also the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by this Court of which review is sought. 3. Before I deal with the merits of the petition at hand, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII, which provide for review of the judgments and orders, and delineate the grounds on which such reviews can be sought. "114. Review: Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved: (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. ORDER XLVII (R, 1-9). REVIEW 1. Application for review of judgement Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any order made against him, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order." 4. It is beaten law of the land that review can be made when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such error must be a patent error which can be detected on a glance without continuing long drawn discussion and deliberations. It is beaten law of the land that review can be made when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such error must be a patent error which can be detected on a glance without continuing long drawn discussion and deliberations. Review can be granted even when there is an error of law while exercising the jurisdiction. 5. Further, review can also be sought on the ground when it is averred that new and important matter of evidence was discovered which was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner and could not been discovered even after exercising due diligence. The question is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for granting the review petition. 6. I have gone through the averments made in the review petition as also the order passed by this Court. I find that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Situated thus, review-petitioner, has not made out any case for reviewing the order in question. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.