JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record. 2. By means of present review petition, petitioner has sought for review of the judgment and order dated 30.6.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3591(MS) of 2015 ( Bajrang Vikram Singh alias Santosh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others) . 3. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the review petitioner has pressed the review petition on the following grounds: - "(b) Because while passing the judgment and order dated 30.6.2015 , the Hon'ble Judge failed to appreciate that plaintiff himself having admitted that the sale deed was without possession and that he was not in possession for next 12 years, the sale deed was nothing but a waste piece of paper which will not accrue any rights to the plaintiff ( predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties no. 3 to 6) (d) Because, the Hon'ble Judge erred in not appreciating that there was no independent witness to the scribing of the sale deed dated 3.3.1965 or at the time of its execution or registration before the Sub Registrar and plaintiff's own witnesses had denied execution of the sale deed before them. (h) Because the Hon'ble Judge erred in appreciating that the plaintiff as well as his witnesses having admitted that the plaintiff had never been in possession and the suit having been filed after expiry of 12 years, the claim of adverse possession of the petitioner will trickle down from Vritanti of Nirmal to Ram Sunder Singh to Bajrang Vikram Singh in continuity." 4. So far as ground no.'d' on the basis of which review has been sought , from the perusal of the judgment dated 30.6.2015 passed in Writ Petition no.3591 (MS) of 2015 the position which emerge out is that the said point has been dealt with by the Court so on the basis of said ground review cannot be allowed as review lies only there is error apparent on the face of record. In this regard, Hon'ble 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 , 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. In this regard, Hon'ble 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 , 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. 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. (See. Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163 and Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 ) 6. Thus , the said ground on which the petitioner wants to review the order dated 30.6.2015 is not sufficient grounds/reasons on which the same can be reviewed because under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. (See. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 ). 7. So far as grounds nos. 'b' and 'h' are concerned, after arguing at some length , learned counsel for review petitioner has fairly admitted that the same were not argued/ pressed in the Writ Petition No. 3591 ( MS) of 2015, so keeping in view of the said fact as well as law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Ram Nath ( 2005) 10 SCC 596 as under: - " In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the merit of this appeal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, So far as payment of Sum of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant is concerned, it appears that the said sum was awarded by the State Commissioner. Though , the same was challenged in the ground of appeal filed before the National Forum but during the course of arguments, the point was not pressed. This being the position, we do no permit the appellant to raise this question before this Court." 8. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of S.N.S. ( Minerals) Ltd. And another Vs. Union of India and another (2007) 12 SCC, 132 has held as under: - " But the question is whether such a plea was in fact urged. From a reading of the order of the High Court and the counter affidavit filed before this Court in which it has been specifically urged at para 9 and 10 that no such argument was advanced, we do no consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for, considering the limited scope of review( see: Ganesh Sugar Mills Vs. State of U.P. And others( 1986) 1 SCC 623, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Jyothish Chandra Biswas (2000) 6 SCC 562 and Rajasthan Agriculture University Vs. Ram Krishna Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 720 )" 9. I do not find any good ground or reason to interfere in the matter on the basis of submission made by learned counsel for review petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is dismissed.