JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma and Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ This review petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2009 passed by this court in writ petition No.3160 (MB) of 1997, whereby the writ petition was allowed. The operative portion of the judgment and order, on reproduction, reads as under: "In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 01.06.1996 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The respondents no. 2 and 3 shall finalize the contract in pursuance of the allotment dated 12th July, 1995." 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, we may refer to the statutory grounds as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for seeking review of a judgment or order passed by this court. They are : (a) that there is discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) that some important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) that there was some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or there is any other sufficient reason. 4. It is also settled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In the judgment of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruymale passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court which is reported in (1960) 1 SCR 890 , it has been held as under: "An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ." 6. Further, that ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 . The observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment are as: "Under Order XLVII, 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 XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, 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." 7. The aforesaid views were reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court also in a later judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 1634 (Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and others). Similar views have also been taken in another judgment reported in JT 2009 (9) SC 537; (2009) 14 SCC 663 (Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs.). 8. In view of all the aforesaid, there is no error/mistake apparent on the face of record. 9. Thus, there is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed, as such.