JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma and Rakesh Srivastava, JJ. The Review Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2013 passed in writ petition No.264 (SB) of 2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. As far as the Review Petitions are concerned, under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. In Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) [(1995)1SCC 170 : 1995 SCFBRC 370] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. 4. The Hon. Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi Vs Sumitra Devi 1997 (8) SCC 715 : 1997 SCFBRC 391 observed that under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a rider on the power of the Court, which passed the order. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-hard and corrected. On the aforesaid acid test it is settled position that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 5. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record and it appears that he wants re-hearing of the case under the garb of the application, which is not permissible. 6. In this case there is nothing apparent on the face of the record, which may be rectified through the review. 7. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.