JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma and Rakesh Srivastava,JJ. Mr. C.K. Seth, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that he has no objection in case delay in filing the instant review petition be condoned and the matter be heard finally. 2. Accordingly, delay in filing the instant review petition is condoned. 3. Heard Mr. Udai Bhan Pandey, learned counsel for the review applicant and Mr. C.K. Seth, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. The review petitioner has filed the instant review petition, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 6.2.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.4522 of 1996 (S/B), whereby the writ petition was allowed with the following directions: "The long and short of the discussions made above is that the writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed and the impugned suspension order dated 7.12.1993, dismissal order dated 22.12.1995 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 6.5.1996 are hereby quashed. It is important to point out that while filing the writ petition, the petitioner has indicated the age as 47 years and as such, he must have attained the age of retirement during the pendency of the writ petition. In these circumstances, no question for reinstatement or for "de novo enquiry" arises. We are of the considered view that ends of justice and equity would be served, if the petitioner is made entitled for post retiral benefits. Accordingly, respondents are directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner treating him to be in service and pay all his terminal benefits within four months. However, it is clarified that on the principle of "no work no pay", the petitioner shall not be entitled for the arrears of salary with effect from the date of dismissal till the actual date of his retirement. Registry is directed to pay fee to the amicus curiae as per Rules within a month." 5. Before adjudicating and deciding the matter in question, it is appropriate to go through the ambit and scope of the review on which a review petition can be made. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. Registry is directed to pay fee to the amicus curiae as per Rules within a month." 5. Before adjudicating and deciding the matter in question, it is appropriate to go through the ambit and scope of the review on which a review petition can be made. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 has emphasized that the 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. 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. 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. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid 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. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner, on relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Union of India and Others : (1997) 10 SCC 592 , has submitted that in Surjit Singh (supra), it has been held when there is patent error in the judgment, the Court/Tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its order/directions. In the instant case, certain points have been left to be considered while passing the impugned judgment and as such, the impugned judgment may be reviewed. 11. From perusing the impugned orders, it reflects that the review petitioner has in fact tried to persuade the Court for re-hearing and re-appraisal of the matter, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction of this Court. 12. It is pertinent to add here that though the Counsel for the review petitioner has made submission that certain points have been left to be considered, while passing the impugned judgment but he fails to point out those points, which have been left to be considered. It is settled law that 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. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not possible to review a judgment only to give the review petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not possible to review a judgment only to give the review 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. Therefore, for the facts and circumstances of the case, Surjit Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. 13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal proposition of law and also perusing the records, we are of the view that no case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 6.2.2013 passed in writ petition No. 4522 of 1996 (S/B) is made out. 14. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.