JUDGMENT:- M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Review Application being aggrieved against the order dated 03.02.2015 in W.P.No.31904 of 2014 passed by this Court. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that this Court should have seen that the sale proclamation was assailed by the Petitioner in I.A.No.91 of 2011 and the same was not considered by the Recovery Officer and the Tribunals in a proper fashion. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that this Court ought to have seen that if the Petitioner had participated in the auction, then, he would have to give up his 'Right of Redemption'. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that this Court should have seen that the action of the 2nd Respondent/Bank in not impleading the father of the Petitioner in the Original Proceedings had curtailed the Right of Redemption. 4. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that I.A.No.91 of 2011 was filed challenging the proclamation of sale and as such, the remedy available to the Petitioner is only under Rule 11 and not under Rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the remedy under Rule 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act is available to the defaulter. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor/mortgagor and further, Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 presupposes deposit of debts due only from the person whom the amount of debt due to a Bank and that the Petitioner did not owe any amount to the 2nd Respondent/Bank. 6. Lastly, a ground is taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that this Court should have seen that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for waiver sufficient reasons/grounds were explained warranting total waiver. 7. 6. Lastly, a ground is taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that this Court should have seen that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for waiver sufficient reasons/grounds were explained warranting total waiver. 7. It cannot be gainsaid that this Court, in W.P.No.31904 of 2014 filed by the Review Petitioner against the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the 2nd Respondent/Bank, on 03.02.2015, passed an elaborate order, after hearing both sides by inter alia holding that the 1st Respondent/Appellate Tribunal had considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned in question and resultantly, dismissed the Writ Petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 8. It is to be borne in mind that the Hon'ble High Court has not only the plenary power but a duty to correct any error and in respect of an order passed by it. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that a Review of an order passed by a Competent Court of Law is a serious step and it is proper only where a glaring omission/error or a patent mistake has crept in the order so passed. No wonder, the ambit of 'Review' is very much restricted. 9. That apart, a 'Review' which seeks rehearing of the issue is per se not maintainable, in the eye of Law. Indisputably, 'Power of Review' is not an Appeal in disguise. Also, this Court is conscious and alive to the well accepted principle that 'Power of Review' is not to be confused with the Power of Court of Law to correct an erroneous/ wrong order. In the garb of 'Review', the High Court cannot hear the parties either on Facts or on point of Law afresh, especially in the absence of any patent mistake or grave error that had crept in the order so passed. 10. It is to be remembered that rehearing of matter on merits and re-appreciation of pleas/arguments projected by the parties in the original order is certainly impermissible in 'Review'. Suffice it for this Court to point out that 'Review' literally and even judicially means 'Re-examination' or 'Reconsideration'. Further, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of order leading to failure of justice, the order passed by a Court of Law cannot be disturbed. 11. Suffice it for this Court to point out that 'Review' literally and even judicially means 'Re-examination' or 'Reconsideration'. Further, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of order leading to failure of justice, the order passed by a Court of Law cannot be disturbed. 11. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is making an endeavour to raise the very same pleas taken by him at the time of passing of the orders in the Writ Petition and the same is impermissible in Law. Furthermore, if the Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 03.02.2015 in W.P.No.31904 of 2014 passed by this Court, in which his understanding was not correctly decided as per Law or on Facts or erroneously decided, such an argument can only be agitated in an Appeal before the Higher Forum, but not certainly in a Review Petition, in the considered opinion of this Court. That apart, reappraisal of the entire gamut of materials on record for unearthing an error would certainly, in the considered opinion of this Court, amount to exercise of an 'Appellate Jurisdiction' which cannot be permitted. Looking at from any angle, this Court concludes that the Petitioner has not made out a case for 'Review'. Resultantly, the Review Application fails. 12. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.