JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record. 2. Present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1593 (S/S) of 2001 (Raeesul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others) along with connected writ petitions, whereby, the said writ petitions have been disposed of with the following orders: "This is bunch of cases, which are being disposed of by common judgment as the controversy involved therein is the same. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the full bench of this court has decided the controversy involved in the bunch of these cases vide order dated 14.5.2015 passed in the bunch of cases, leading case of which is writ petition no. 1593 of 2001 (S/S) Raeesul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others. The operative portion of the order dated 14.5.2015 reads as follows: - "For these reasons, we answer the reference by holding that it is not the date on which the vacancy has occurred, but the year of recruitment which is relevant for the determination of eligibility for promotion to the Lecturers' grade under the Rules of 1998. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. All the writ petitions shall now be placed before the regular Bench according to roster for disposal in the light of the present judgment. These petitions are disposed of finally in terms of the full bench decision dated 14.5.2015. It is also provided that in case the promotion of the petitioner is not made or made in contravention of the full bench decision, the same shall be considered in terms of the full bench decision dated 14.5.2015. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the case of the petitioner has not been considered on merit in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, so, he filed a modification application being C.M. Application No.66245 of 2015, which has been rejected by following order dated 16.07.2015: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to modify the order dated 02.07.2015 to the extent that the petitioner's promotion be considered from the due date i.e. July, 1999 with all consequential benefits and the promotion of the respondent no.6 on the post of Lecturer Hindi besides seniority in lecturer grade and further promotion on the post of officiating Principal be subjected with consequential changing in terms of the order dated 04.05.2001 of this Court and the decision of the Larger Bench dated 14.05.2015. In view of the Full Bench decision, the promotion has to be considered in terms of the findings recorded by the Full Bench year-wise. Hence, no modification is required. The competent authority will consider the same in the light of the decision of the Full Bench. The application is rejected." 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, for the first and foremost question which has to be decided to this Court is that once the application moved by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.1593 (S/S) of 2001 (Raeesul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been rejected then in that circumstances, on the same ground, the review petition is maintainable or not. 4. So far as the provisions of review is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. 5. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. 5. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 , the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review. 6. This Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163 , rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under: - "It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued." 7. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , in a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 8. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C. 9. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C. 9. Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court. 10. In View of the above discussion , the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC . The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other' sufficient reason' must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the fact of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 , after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680 ; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323 ; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231 ; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 , after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680 ; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323 ; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231 ; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365 ; observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well." 12. Thus keeping in view the abovesaid facts as well as the facts that in the present case after passing of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015, the petitioner moved modification application on the same grounds and facts on which the present review petition has been filed (admitted by the review petitioner) and the same has been rejected by order dated 16.07.2015, so, keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present review petition is not maintainable. 13. For the forgoing reasons, the review petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 14. However, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance which has been raised in the present review petition by availing an appropriate remedy/ filing special appeal against the order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.1593 (S/S) of 2001 (Raeesul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others), if so advised.