JUDGMENT 1.Heard on I.A. No. 8560 of 2014. 2. From perusal of averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing this review petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay in filing the petition is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Heard on admission. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioners seek review of the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 252 of 2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs were not able to establish their title and the first appellate Court has wrongly rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted that the dispute between the State Government and the plaintiff is pending adjudication before this Court in First Appeal, namely FA No. 243 of 2006. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of decree for eviction. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. The judgment passed by this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in this review petition. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the application for review cannot sit on appeal over the judgment or decree passed by it. S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 . For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the review petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.