ORDER : P. S. Rana, J. Present review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for review of order dated 01.10.2015 passed in CMPMO No.405 of 2014 title Kavita Bhaskar vs. H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited. Brief facts of the case: 2. Non-petitioner Smt. Kavita Bhaskar filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.21,318/- (Rupee Twenty one thousand Three hundred eighteen) alongwith interest and future interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 13.10.2009 against petitioner H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited. It is pleaded that non-petitioner Smt. Kavita Bhaskar carries business of sale and supply of hospital equipments and surgical items. It is pleaded that written agreement was executed inter se parties for supply of material to H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited vide invoice Nos. 2176, 2177 & 2178 dated 16.03.2009 amounting to Rs.2,95,800/- (Rupee Two lac ninety five thousand eight hundred). It is pleaded that H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited withheld an amount to the tune of Rs.21,318/- (Rupee twenty one thousand three hundred eighteen). Thereafter Smt. Kavita Bhaskar filed civil suit for recovery of amount. During pendency of civil suit Smt. Kavita Bhaskar filed application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pleaded therein that H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited took preliminary objection No.2 in written statement that as per terms and conditions of written agreement there is provision for appointment of Arbitrator as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and Smt. Kavita Bhaskar be permitted to withdraw civil suit with permission to file claim before learned Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by Smt. Kavita Bhaskar. Smt. Kavita Bhaskar filed CMPMO No.405 of 2014 under Article 227 of Constitution of India and same was disposed of on 01.10.2015 by the High Court and Smt. Kavita Bhaskar was permitted to withdraw civil suit with liberty to file statement of claim before Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Present review petition is filed for review of order dated 01.10.2015 passed in CMPMO No. 405 of 2014 by the High Court. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of nonpetitioner and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether review petition filed by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of review petition? 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of nonpetitioner and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether review petition filed by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of review petition? 2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed application under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and order warrants review is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner namely H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited himself took preliminary objections in written statement that civil suit is not maintainable in view of Arbitration clause in agreement. It is well settled law that parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Person cannot be allowed to take benefit and then turn round and say that same is void. See AIR 1993 Apex Court 352 title R.N.Gosain A Vs. Yashpal Dhir. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that Smt. Kavita Bhaskar did not file application to refer the matter to Arbitrator as per Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator and on this ground review petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Petitioner namely H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited himself took preliminary objections in written statement that civil suit filed by Smt. Kavita Bhaskar is not maintainable in view of Arbitration clause in written agreement executed inter se parties. It is held that H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited is estopped from raising objection due to own act and conduct. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that no opportunity was granted to H.P. General Inds. Corpn. Ltd. to take pleas of limitation and on this ground review petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 23 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Smt. Kavita Bhaskar would state the facts supporting claim, points at issue and the relief or remedy sought and thereafter H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited shall state defence. As per Section 23 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Smt. Kavita Bhaskar would state the facts supporting claim, points at issue and the relief or remedy sought and thereafter H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited shall state defence. It is held that as per Section 23 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 petitioner H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited is at liberty to take all defence before Arbitrator in accordance with law. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to review earlier order passed by the High Court. 9. It is well settled law that for review purpose an error must be apparent on the face of record. It is well settled law that error must be evident. See AIR 1960 SC 137 title Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and others Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale. See AIR 1964 SC 1372 title Thungabhadra Inds. Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh. Also see AIR 1979 SC 1047 title A. T. Sharma Vs. A. P. Sharma and others. Also see AIR 1980 SC 674 title Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi. Also see AIR 1995 SC 455 title Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury. Also see JT 2000 (7) SC 359 title B. H. Prabhakar and Others Vs. M.D. Karnataka State Coop. In view of above stated facts it is held that there is no error apparent on the face of record in the present case. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 10. In view of findings upon point No.1 above review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Review Petition No. 11/2016 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.