JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-appellants have filed this Review Petition under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking Review of Judgment dated 8.8.2014 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 302 of 2013. By the judgment under Review, Miscellaneous Appeal of the petitioner-appellants was dismissed on merit. 2. The instant Review Petition is filed by the petitioner belatedly and as per office report, it is barred by limitation of 183 days. The petitioner have made endeavour to seek condonation of delay by laying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments made in the application are as under:- (1) That the appellants were having no knowledge of the impugned Order dated 8.8.2014 until 12.2.2015 when appellants were informed by their Counsel that their case has been disposed on 8.8.2014 by the Hon'ble High Court. (2) That the appellants were regularly in touch with their Counsel and time to time making enquiry about the next date of the case but it was told by the Counsel that next date will be informed as and when it will reflect upon computer upon the website of Hon'ble High Court. (3) That recently they enquired from the website of Hon'ble High Court on 2.2.2015 and still the status was coming as pending and no new date has been shown after the case was last listed in Court No. 9 on 8.8.2014. (4) That when it was asked by appellants to the Counsel to make a detailed enquiry from the office of Hon'ble Court in order to get status of the case and when our Counsel enquired from the Section of Hon'ble Court office on 12.2.2015 it was told by digit clerk that the case has been disposed of on 8.8.2014 as per the register of the case. (5) That on this information our Counsel applied for copy on 13.2.2015 which was supplied to him only on 16.2.2015 and when we attended our Counsel at Jodhpur he Review Application prepared and presented before the Hon'ble Court. (6) That appellants are ladies and living in remote area villages therefore delay in filing Review Petition may kindly be condoned. It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the delay in filing of Review Petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. (6) That appellants are ladies and living in remote area villages therefore delay in filing Review Petition may kindly be condoned. It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the delay in filing of Review Petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Counsel for the appellant has a additional affidavit which reads as under:- I, Madan Lal Purohit S/o Shri Gokul Ji, by caste-Purohit, aged about 62 years, Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, resident of 23/60, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.), do hereby state on oath as under:- (1) That I am Counsel for the petitioner/appellant in this case and hence fully conversant with the facts of the, case to the best of my personal knowledge. (2) That on 8.8.2014, there was a general call from Bar Association, Jodhpur to observe voluntarily by-cot of the Courts, therefore, I could not present on that day in the Hon'ble Court and therefore the order was passed in none present. Sine the time was short, therefore, pay was not informed and as such party was also not present. Deponent Verification I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of Para Nos. 1 and 2 of this affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. So Help Me God. Deponent 4. The explanation tendered by the appellant for condonation of delay is per se based on wholly vague, cryptic and unspecific averments. There remains no quarrel that while exercising its judicial power and discretion, Court should adopt a liberal approach in construing word "sufficient cause", but liberal construction of the term does not mean that delay is to be condoned for mere askance. The averments contained in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not plausible reasons inspiring confidence. 5. On merits also, while dismissing the Appeal filed against the order deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., Court has examined the matter threadbare and recorded a finding that granting or refusing temporary injunction or passing a conditional order in this behalf rests within the sole discretion of the learned Trial Court. 5. On merits also, while dismissing the Appeal filed against the order deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., Court has examined the matter threadbare and recorded a finding that granting or refusing temporary injunction or passing a conditional order in this behalf rests within the sole discretion of the learned Trial Court. Further, it is observed that the Appellate Court is not expected to trench upon the jurisdiction of the learned Court below unless and until it is shown that discretion has been exercised perversely or in utter disregard to sound legal principles governing the said province. 6. The legal precedent on which learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance namely Mahakali Engineering Corporation & Anr. v. R.S. Subramanyam & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 264 , is clearly distinguishable looking to the facts of the present case and as such cannot render any assistance. 7. In totality I am unable to lay my hand on any error much less error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review. 8. Power of review is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and power is not meant for rehearing the matter and even an erroneous decision is not liable to be reviewed. For exercising powers of review, error much be apparent on mere looking of record without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning. Re-appraisal of entire evidence on record for finding error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible. 9. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay and accordingly the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. The rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act entails rejection of the Review Petition also and same is, therefore, dismissed.Application and review petition dismissed. *******