JUDGMENT Dr. Satish Chandra, J. Sri K.S.Rastogi, learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that the order was passed in his absence and on the basis of the statement made by Sri Ravindra Nath Mehrotra. So, he made a request that the order dated 05.02.2013 may kindly be recalled. 2. On the other hand, Sri Ravindra Nath Mehrotra, respondent no.2 submits that in pursuance to the order, the election had been held and he was elected as a Manager of the Institution in question. Thus, the order has been complied with. He also submits that counsel for the review-petitioner was not present even at the time of list revised. 3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the order, a direction was issued to hold fresh election of the Management of the Institution in question by the Registrar of Societies with the help of Sub Divisional Magistrate. The election has already been concluded, where Sri Ravindra Nath Mehrotra has been elected, as per his statement, on the post of Manager of the Institution in question. Thus, the order of this Court has been complied with. Hence, there is no mistake apparent from the record. 4. It may be mentioned that the scope of the review is very limited as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of: - (1) Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary (1995) 1 SCC 170 ; and (2) Parsion Devi & others Vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 175. 5. 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. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) [ (1995) 1 SCC 170 ] 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. 6. The Hon. Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi Vs. 6. The Hon. Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitra Devi (supra) 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". 7. Counsel for the review-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 review application, which is not permissible. 8. In view of above, the review petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed.