JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh and Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ Present review petition is filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 for review of the judgment and order dated dated 30.05.2013 passed in writ petition No. 8189 (MB) of 2012 by stating that there is apparent mistake on the face of the record. It is pertinent to mention that the review petitioner was not a party in the writ petition. 2. Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party in the judgment and order dated 30.05.2013 but he was an elected Chairman of the Committee of Management of the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Sang Limited (UPSS) in the election held in 1999. He also submits that the review petitioner is an old man and is being victimized for political reasons and deserves to be heard in the matter as he has substantial interest in the matter. 3. According to the learned counsel, all actions taken and order made under the U.P. Act No.11 of 1966 being void and non-est, the Committee of Management existing before 09.11.2000 shall remain in existence and that Committee has to comply with the conduct of the elections under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act. 4. Lastly, he made a request to recall the order in question. 5. After hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of record, it appears that the court has passed the order and direct that Central Registrar, as well as the Committee of Management of UPSS shall hold the election under the provisions of the Act, 2002 after granting registration and till the next election is conducted, the Committee of Management elected in 2010 shall continue to function during the transaction and interregnum period. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to contest the election as and when it will be held. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. But there is no merit in the review petition specially when the review petitioner was not a party in the writ petition. 7. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to contest the election as and when it will be held. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. But there is no merit in the review petition specially when the review petitioner was not a party in the writ petition. 7. It may be mentioned that 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." 8. Further, that ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of the Hon'ble 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." 9. 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. 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.). 10.Now under the garb of review, no hearing is allowed as per the ratio laid down in the case of M/s Bharat Drug Stores Vs. CIT, 197 Taxation 263 (Gauhati); CIT vs. Malwa Trising, 292 ITR 88 M.P. Further, it may be mentioned that oversight of fact/not considered arguments does not amount an error apparent on the face of record as per the ratio laid down in the case of Ras Behari Bansal vs. CIT, 293 ITR 365 Delhi. 11. In view of the aforesaid, there is no error/mistake apparent on the face of record nor any question of law of great public importance involved in the present review petition exists. 12. Thus, the review petition is dismissed as such.