JUDGMENT Anant Kumar, J. This review petition under Chapter V Rule 12 read with Chapter IX Rule 14 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed in respect of the judgment and order dated 10.09.2013, passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan in Writ Petition (Consolidation) No.2997 of 1980 (Tihuli Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad & others). It is stated in the writ petition that there was a dispute in respect of Khata No.75 of Village Rustampur, Post- Neori, Pargana- Bidhar, Tahsil Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. In the first round of litigation, the matter came up before this Court and two writ petitions were filed being Writ Petition No.1309 of 1971 and Writ Petition No.1411 of 1971 and the matter was remanded to the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the matter afresh and after the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the present writ petition [Writ Petition (Consolidation) No.2997 of 1980] was again filed before this Court, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2013 but in the said order certain defects have been crept in which are on the face of records, which require correction. 2. In this review petition, a prayer has been made for reviewing the judgment and order dated 10.09.2013, passed in Writ Petition (Consolidation) No.2997 of 1980. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. This review petition has not yet been admitted for hearing. However, at the time of hearing on the point of admission, the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos.14 and 15 appeared and raised an objection that this review petition is not maintainable, as the judgment passed by this Court under reivew is totally clear and there is no impediment or defect in the same which may require any interference. So, the parties have been heard on the point of maintainability of this review petition. 5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has stated that the defects which are on the face of record are that the findings have been recorded by this Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2013 that in the entire writ petition it has not been stated that the admission made by the petitioner was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. It is also mentioned in the judgment passed in the earlier writ petitions Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide as to whether the admission of the petitioner was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud the petitioner was very much aware that his earlier statement was to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the requirement of confrontation under Section 145 of Evidence Act was fulfilled. It is further stated that from the perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.09.2013, passed by this Court, it is clear that this Court while passing the said judgment has committed an error which is apparent on the face of record to the effect that the question of alleged admission of Tihuli during proceedings of correction of paper was only raised by Girdhari and Bhullan in Revision No.563/1180/1008 because they claimed their title and share in the land in dispute only on the basis of that alleged piece of evidence i.e. alleged admission of Tihuli. However, the said plea of Girdhari and Bhullan has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in its order dated 30.08.1980, after considering the whole matter in detail. But this Hon'ble Court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that this question of admission was having no concern with Banwari, Nigghi and Nagai because their claim was only based upon the ground that since the land in dispute belong to Gopal and being heirs of Gopal, they are having share in the land in dispute and that is why this Hon'ble Court while passing the impugned judgment has committed manifest error of law which is apparent on the face of record as he mixed the said question of admission in the case of Banwari, Nigghi and Nagai and in these circumstances the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside so that the matter may be reconsidered and decided on merit, in the interest of justice. 6. In sum and substance the learned counsel for the review petitioner has stated that the Hon'ble Judge deciding the writ petition has left certain material on record from consideration and as such a wrong order has been passed. 7. 6. In sum and substance the learned counsel for the review petitioner has stated that the Hon'ble Judge deciding the writ petition has left certain material on record from consideration and as such a wrong order has been passed. 7. Refuting the argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos.14 and 15 has stated that entire argument as placed by the parties before the learned Judge has properly been considered and after considering the entire material on record, the impugned judgment has been passed, so there is no scope of reviewing the judgment and if at all the points raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are considered, this Court will have to inter into the merit of the case and will have to decide the case afresh, which is not permissible under the powers of review, as enumerated in law. 8. On behalf of the learned counsel for the review petitioner a case law, reported in [ 2010 (28) LCD 1366 ] Sant Bux Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and another has been cited, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has held following the principle as laid down in a case 2001 (19) LCD 527 , M.M.Thomas Vs. State of Kerla and another that if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any order passed by it, the High Court has not only power but a duty to correct it. The High Courts power in that regard is plenary. The High Court is the Court of record, has inherent powers to correct the records. 9. Another case law cited on his behalf is 2001 (19) LCD 527 , M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerla and another. In the said case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 13 has held as under: - "13.High Court as a Court of Record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A Court of Record envelopes all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of Record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. A Court of Record envelopes all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of Record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary." 10. Another case law cited on behalf of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595, S. Nagaraj and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another. In the said case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the Court finds that order was passed under a mistake, and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which infact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. It has further held in paragraph 19 as under: - "19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and proerly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscariage of justice." 11. Whereas, on behalf of the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos.14 and 15, reliance has been placed on a case law reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while assuming the power of review has held in paragraph 8 as under: - "8. It is well settled that the reivew proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while assuming the power of review has held in paragraph 8 as under: - "8. It is well settled that the reivew proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p.390, para 3) "It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any enalogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A poewr of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court while approving the principle laid down in another case law reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, has 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. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, has 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." 13. If the review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is decided on the touchstone of the said case laws, it is apparent that in the reivew petition entire merit of the case has been mentioned and the points raised by the learned counsel for the reivew petition are such that if the same are taken into consideration, this Court will have to inter into the merit of the case. The points raised in the review petition do not show that there is any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment. The Hon'ble Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has taken into account every aspect of the matter and the same can not be reopened in proceedings under review as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the impugned judgment and as held in the case of Meera Bhanja (Supra) the review proceedings are not by way of any appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. So, to my view there is no error on the face of record in the impugned judgment, which could be corrected in this review petition. 14. To my view, this petition has got no force and is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 02.12.2014 stands vacated.