JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. This is a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P. Code, filed by the appellant of Writ Appeal No.371 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court on 15.06.2012. Since the learned Judges are no longer available in the High Court to hear and decide this Review Petition as provided in order 47 of CP Code read with High Court Rules and hence pursuant to office order of the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court dated 29.10.2013, this Review Petition is placed before this Bench for its disposal according to law. 2. Heard Mr.A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and having perused record of the case, in our opinion, the grounds which are sought to be made subject matter of this review petition do not satisfy the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 and therefore, no review can be filed and if filed, the same cannot be entertained. In other words, there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the case which can be said to have been made out and hence, the review is not tenable. It is liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt made vehement attack in persuading this court to seek review on the grounds pleaded in the application. However, we are afraid we can accept any of his submissions. In our view, the grounds which are sought to be raised in review petition may be good grounds in appeal, if filed, but not for seeking review. What may be good ground in appeal may not be good for seeking review though vice versa may hold good for calling interference. We, therefore, do not wish to deal with each and every ground in detail, which are used in support of this review petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited several authorities to contend that they were not taken note of though cited at the time of hearing of the writ appeal. He, therefore, contended that a case is made out for review. We do not agree. The order passed by this court is reasoned one and has decided the controversy. The remedy of petitioner if at all may lie in filing appeal, as provided in law. 6. He, therefore, contended that a case is made out for review. We do not agree. The order passed by this court is reasoned one and has decided the controversy. The remedy of petitioner if at all may lie in filing appeal, as provided in law. 6. It is with these observations and liberty, We find no merit in this review application. It fails and is accordingly, dismissed in limine. No cost.