JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. This review petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 20.8.2013 passed whereby the writ petition was dismissed holding that it is not a fit case for interference. 2. I have perused the record. At the very outset, it would be apposite to note that the review of a judgment or order as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be sought only on the grounds like: (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. 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. 3. In the judgment of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruymale 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." 4. Further this 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 : 1997 SCFBRC 391. The observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court reads 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. The observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court reads 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." 5. The aforesaid views have again been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in a later judgment reported in 2006 (2) ARC 87 : AIR 2006 SC 1634 (Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and others). A similar view was also taken in another judgment reported in 2009 (2) ARC 671 JT 2009 (9) SC 537 : (2009) 14 SCC 663 (Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs.). 6. In view of the above, I am satisfied that there is no apparent mistake on the face of the record nor any question of great public importance is involved in the present review petition. Finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of material on record. So, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary (1995) 1 SCC 170 : 1997 SCFBRC 370;and (2) Parsion Devi & others v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 175 : 1997 SCFBRC 391,I am of the view that this review petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Hence, this review petition is dismissed.