JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners have preferred the present Review Petition as against the Order dated 5/1/2011 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 passed by this Court. 2. It is to be borne in mind that this Court while passing the order on 5/1/2011 in C.R.P. (MD) No.1185 of 2003 has inter alia observed in paragraph Nos.17 to 20 as follows:- “17. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to make a significant mention to the averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in the sworn statement in the chief examination, in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3, wherein he has mentioned that during 02.11.2000, he has been working as a Teacher in Surlipatti and he used to go to his native place Madurai once in three or four months and when the suit has come up for final hearing on 02.11.2000, his counsel has informed him to his residential address, but he has not received the same and hence, he has not appeared for the hearing on 02.11.2000. The averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in his own affidavit in the Chief examination in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3 to the effect that during 02.11.2000, he has served in Surlipatti and he used to come to Madurai once in three or four months, etc, is quite contrary to the admissions made by him as P.W.1 (in cross-examination on 24.3.2003) to the effect that he does not remember as to whether he has mentioned in the affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 that he has been serving at Surlipatti and before that, he has served at Thumbakundu etc., and before 04.11.2000, he has served at Thumbakundu and at that time, he used to go to Madurai daily. 18. Therefore, the averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) at paragraph 3 of the sworn affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 to the effect that he used to go to Madurai once in three or four months when he has been serving at Surlipatti is not a correct statement and it is quite clear that the petitioner has not come out with a genuine and bonafide sufficient/good cause and this itself is quite sufficient reason to reject the application, in the considered opinion of this Court. 19. 19. Added further, even when the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) has received the notice in E.P.No.22 of 2001 on 27.03.2001 and appeared through the counsel on 29.03.2001 and appeared through the counsel on 29.03.2001, he has projected the condo nation of delay application only on 31.01.2002. 20. Be that as it may, even though this Court is quite aware of well settled principle that a Court of law must ensure that the substantial justice is to be delivered to the parties by adopting a liberal approach, yet on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the incorrect averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) as P.W.1 before the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002 (as between the averment made by him in paragraph 3 of the sworn statement in I.A.No.99 of 2002 and the admission made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in his cross-examination on 24.03.2003 that before 04.11.2000, he has served at Thumbakundu, he used to go to Madurai daily}, this Court is unable to adopt a liberal approach overriding technicalities and since the petitioner has not made out a bona fide, genuine sufficient/good cause in the application in I.A.No.99 of 2002 and in his evidence as P.W.1 before the trial Court, this Court is perforced to reject the I.A.No.99 of 2002 and on going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002, the same is not tainted with any illegality or material irregularity and resultantly, the civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and viewed in that perspective, the Civil Revision Petition fails.” And resultantly, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition by affirming the order dated 9/7/2003 in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 1996 passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Periyakulam. 3. The Petitioners in their grounds of Review have averred that by an order dated 1/12/2009, the Revision was allowed on condition of payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-, unfortunately, due to communication gap between the Petitioners and their counsel, costs could not be paid and the Petitioners do not find any fault with their Counsel and at the same time, Revision was allowed already should not have been dismissed on technical grounds by when the earlier order was a matter of record. 4. 4. That apart, the Petitioners have also taken a plea in the grounds of Review that on their Petition for extension of time, the Revision was restored and when it came before another Learned Judge and when the Learned Judge was inclined to allow the Revision, the Respondent took time on the statement that they were settled the matter. Unfortunately, the settlement had not taken place. All the facts were placed before the Learned Judge. But the Learned Judge was pleased to dismissed the Revision only on the ground that there was inconsistency in the evidence of Peya Thevar with regard to reason for the delay and the observation in paragraph 20 of the order passed on 5/1/2011 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 may kindly be caused to be reconsidered by this Court. 5. Yet another stand of the Petitioners in the Grounds of Review is that the Respondent has obtained an Ex parte Decree for specific performance to an extent of 2.17 acres Punjab lands while the contesting defendant Peya Thevar (Deceased) specifically pleaded that it was a joint family property and therefore, agreement executed by him alone could not be enforceable when such substantial triable issue is involved. 6. The substance of contention of the Review Petitioners is that an opportunity should have been given to the Petitioners to contest the suit. But because of mere inconsistency in evidence finally this Court dismissed the Revision Petition. 7. Lastly, it is the strenuous plea made by the Revision Petitioners (in the Grounds of Revision) that the subject land is only source of livelihood for all the three Petitioners and that be the case, this Court finally passed an order of dismissing the C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 on 5/1/2011 is erroneous in Law on technical grounds of inconsistency in evidence, which needs to be reconsidered, in the interest of Justice. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that there is no error apparent on the face of record, so as to enable this Court to interfere with the orders passed in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 on 5/11/2011. 9. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that there is no error apparent on the face of record, so as to enable this Court to interfere with the orders passed in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 on 5/11/2011. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff urges before this Court that a mere perusal of the affidavit filed by the Petitioners in the condone delay application before the trial Court would clearly show that there is absolutely no reason to allow the said application and the Review Petition/Application has been filed by the Petitioners with a view to defeat the delay of right of Respondent/Plaintiff that by filing the Review Petition, the Petitioners cannot either ask for reacquire or De novo Enquiry of the Civil Revision Petition. 10. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Review Petition has to be entertained only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. Furthermore, the Review Proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and they are to be strictly limited to the scope and ambit of law, relating to 'Revision'. It cannot be ignored that 'Review cannot be treated as an Appeal in disguise. 11. In fact, the Review Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court. An error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be searched, as opined by this Court. Undoubtedly, a Review is a creation of statute. Even a mere possibility of two views in the matter in question is not a ground for Review, in the considered opinion of this Court. 12. No wonder, there is a clear distance between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. It is true that the former can be created by the higher forum the latter can only be created by the exercise of Review Jurisdiction. An error apparent on the face of record cannot be defined exactly or precisely even exhaustively, their being an ailment of indefiniteness in its very character. 13. It cannot be gain said that the same is left to be determined judicially on the facts governing each case. The Review Proceedings are not to be equated with the original hearing of the case. 13. It cannot be gain said that the same is left to be determined judicially on the facts governing each case. The Review Proceedings are not to be equated with the original hearing of the case. If the view taken by a Court of Law in the Judgment or Order is a possible view, having regard to the facts discernable from the facts on record, then, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of record and as such no Review is possible/can be made. 14. As a matter of fact, one cannot seek the Review, which is impermissible within the purview of either under Section 114 of C.P.C., or under Or.47 of C.P.C., because of the reason something is what is decided on merits is sought to be decided once again, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also, a Court of Law cannot entertain a Review Petition to find out as to which view is correct, as per decision GHANASHYAM SAHOO Vs. KENDRAPARA MUNICIPALITY, AIR 2006 ORI 69 . 15. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that there is no error apparent on the face of record, when this Court has passed orders on 5/1/2011 dismissing C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 on merits and at this stage, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the Review Petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable in Law. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that under the garb of filing the present Review Petition, the Petitioners cannot make an Endeavour before this Court to treat the same as an Appeal in disguise. Also that 'Review' will lie only when there is a patent error. In the present case on hand, there is no patent error when this Court has passed a well considered order while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition (MD) No.1185 of 2003 on 5/1/2011. Looking at from any angle, the Review Petition filed by the Petitioners is devoid of merits. 16. In the result, this Review Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed.