JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 01. This is an application for review of the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.08 of 2012. By the said order, this Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of the learned trial court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 02. One Birendra Kumar Mitra, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, instituted T.S.No.67 of 1985 in the court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Cuttack for partition of the suit schedule properties. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant nos.1, 2, 7 and 8 entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. After death of defendant no.1, his legal heirs, i.e., defendant nos.1(a) to 1(j) filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant nos.3 to 5 also filed a joint written statement. Similarly, after death of defendant no.4, defendant nos.4(d) to 4(f) also filed separate written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 31.3.2005. Final decree proceeding was initiated on 17.4.2008. While the matter stood thus, defendant nos. 1(a) to 1(j), 2, 4(c) to 4(f) and 5 as petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was registered as C.M.A. No.1 of 2007. It was stated that on 12.10.2004 the suit was posted for hearing. Defendant no. 1(b) was looking after the case on behalf of other defendants. He fell ill on 22.8.2004. He was suffering from haemiplagia, high blood pressure and rheumatic arthritis with multiple joint pain, for which he could not attend the court. After recovery from illness, he came to the court and knew about the ex-parte decree. Thereafter he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte decree. Since there was delay, an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The plaintiff filed objection contending, inter alia, that the defendant no. 1(b) was not ill. He was not suffering from haemiplagia, high blood pressure and rheumatic arthritis with multiple joint pain. The doctor, who issued the prescription, had not treated the defendant no. 1(b). There was inordinate delay of 730 days. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Placing reliance on the medical certificate granted by the doctor, Ext.1, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant no. The doctor, who issued the prescription, had not treated the defendant no. 1(b). There was inordinate delay of 730 days. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Placing reliance on the medical certificate granted by the doctor, Ext.1, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant no. 1(b) was suffering from haemiplagia and high blood pressure. Subsequently, he had also suffered from rheumatic arthritics with multiple joint pain and under treatment of the doctor from 22.8.2004 to 12.1.2007. He was advised to take rest. The medical prescription issued by Dr. Budhadev Dey and the lab reports speaks about the illness of the defendant no.1(b) since 2004 to 2009. Held so, it allowed the application. 03. Assailing the said order, the plaintiff, petitioners herein, filed C.R.P. No.8 of 2012 before this Court. Placing reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , this Court came to hold that if a person suffers from haemiplagia, blood pressure, it is difficult on his part to move out. The defendant no.1(b) was bed ridden. The defendants have been prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing in the court when the matter was called on for hearing. This Court did not interfere with the impugned order. Since the plaintiffs filed a stamp paper to the tune of Rs.51,500/- for drawal of final decree proceeding, this Court directed the defendants to pay the said amount along with Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiffs. 04. Thereafter the petitioners filed S.L.P.(C) No.12450 of 2016 before the Hon’ble apex Court. They withdrew the same to file application for review. With this factual background, they filed the application for review. 05. Heard Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. B.C. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the opposite parties. 06. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the partition suit was filed in the year 1985. The defendants were set ex-parte on 22.08.2004. The preliminary decree was passed on 31.03.2005. Thereafter the final decree proceeding was initiated. The final decree was sealed and signed. The defendants filed C.M.A. No.1 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree after a lapse of 730 days. The application was filed when the final decree proceeding was pending. The preliminary decree was passed on 31.03.2005. Thereafter the final decree proceeding was initiated. The final decree was sealed and signed. The defendants filed C.M.A. No.1 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree after a lapse of 730 days. The application was filed when the final decree proceeding was pending. The defendants did not take any step. On untenable and unsupportable grounds, learned trial court allowed the application. Elaborating the submission, he submitted that the defendants are staying in Tinikonia Bagicha, Cuttack, which is nearer to the court. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed by the defendant no.1(b), one of the defendants. Apart from him, there are other defendants. The medical certificate was issued by one MBBS doctor. The doctor was not examined. The medical certificate was also not proved. One Dr. Budhadev Dey granted medical certificate. The certificate reveals that he treated the defendant no.1(b) in the year 2010. He was not examined. These vital aspects of the case had not taken into consideration either by the learned trial court or this Court. Had the aforesaid facts been considered, then the impugned order could not have been passed. Non-consideration of vital aspect of the case is an error apparent on the face of the record. He further submitted that there was inordinate delay. The same was not properly explained. He relied on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 2087 , Rajender Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others, AIR 2006 SC 75 , Katari Suryanarayana and others vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao and others, AIR 2009 SC 2907 , Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 3043 , Parimal vs. Veena Alias Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 , Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 , State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri and others, AIR 2016 SC 3006 and this Court in the case of Rudramani Padhan and others vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1981 Ori.202, Smt. Anima Mishra vs. Smt. S. Venkataratnam and others, (1997) 2 OLR288, Sobhagini Tripathy vs. Subhashini Tripathy and others, 2013 (II) OLR-732 and Manoj Kumar Mishra vs. State of Orissa and others, 2016 (II) OLR-718. 07. The scope of review of an order is well-known. In State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), the apex Court held thus:- “16. In this regard, reference to Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, would also be apt. In the said case, it has been held thus:- “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ), there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a 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 to 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 analogous 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 power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner or errors committed by the subordinate Court.” 17. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, this Court while discussing about the concept of review, has ruled 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 M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, this Court while discussing about the concept of review, has ruled 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”. 18. Almost fifty-five years back, in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, it was laid down that:- “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 and 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.” 08. In the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, it is stated that the defendant no.1(b) was looking after the case on behalf of the other defendants. He was suffering from haemiplagia, high blood pressure and rheumatic arthritis with multiple joint pain. The doctor had granted medical certificate to him. There is no disbelieve to the certificate granted by the doctor. The witnesses examined on behalf of defendant no.2 stated that he was ill. No contrary evidence was adduced. On taking a holistic view of the matter, learned trial court set aside the ex-parte decree. Since the order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, this Court did not incline to interfere with the same. However to mitigate the hardship of the plaintiffs, this Court directed the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.51,500/-paid by him towards cost of stamp paper along with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Since the order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, this Court did not incline to interfere with the same. However to mitigate the hardship of the plaintiffs, this Court directed the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.51,500/-paid by him towards cost of stamp paper along with cost of Rs.20,000/-. With regard to delay in filing the application, this Court referred the decision of the apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 . Thus the submission of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that vital aspects of the matter have not been considered is difficult to fathom. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order. Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity). In view of the same, this Court has not multiplied the authorities, since the ratio of all decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel are same. 09. The petition is dismissed.