ORDER : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. Since these two review petitions have been filed against common order dated 22.07.2016 passed by this Court in two special appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners M/s. Ashoka Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashoka Buildstate Developers Pvt. Ltd. seeking review of the order dated 22.07.2016 whereby special appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 18.08.2015 were dismissed and judgment of the Single Bench was upheld. 3. Review petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the premise that another Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Others, (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 2002/2011 and other connected matters decided on 07.12.2015) has taken contrary view and not only held the writ petition maintainable against the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur, but also held that such forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the respondents therein were well aware of the fact that there was encroachment on the plot in question and as per the resolution of UIT, Jodhpur dated 09.01.1997, the case falls in ‘as is where basis’/’existing sites’ category and therefore, the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short ‘the Act’) did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Division Bench in that judgment relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganeshlal v. Shyam, (2014) 14 SCC 773 . Learned counsel for the review petitioners argued that this Court in the present case was required to decide whether the petitioners’ case was of “livelihood” by means of self-employment or whether it came under the scope of commercial activity as contemplated by Section 2(i) (d) of the Act and whether it either came under “goods” &/or “services” or that the same was “immovable property” and that the transaction in the present case was incomplete and prospective one. It is, therefore, prayed that by recalling the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that by recalling the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the order sought to be reviewed, we find that the present review petitions are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the matters on merits all over again. The judgment turned out on its own facts where this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 held that if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. What is a “commercial purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. Despite the review petitioners relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Singh Bhagat & Others v. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 136 that the appellant cannot be considered to fall within the definition of “consumer” in view of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 did not uphold the contention. On the merits also, this Court did not find any case. Merely because the review petitioners have now come across a judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur (supra), which admittedly was not cited before us when the special appeals they were argued, review petitions cannot be entertained. Scope of review is well defined that review petition seeking review of any judgment/order can be maintained only if there is error apparent on the face of the record. What is being argued herein cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record but can only be called a different appeal on law by another Division Bench, which was because the facts of that case were entirely different. 5. What is being argued herein cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record but can only be called a different appeal on law by another Division Bench, which was because the facts of that case were entirely different. 5. It is not open to this court in the scope of review to examine the matter afresh on merits on the arguments that have been raised on behalf of review petitioners, most of which were neither orally urged during arguments before the Single Bench or even before the Division Bench nor were even pleaded in memorandum of Writ Petition or Special Appeal. Therefore, these arguments possibly cannot be entertained in review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRS v. Motilal (dead) through LRS - (2009) 14 SCC 663 , held that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. First thing that would be seen to entertain a review petition is that an order of which review is sought, suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the order to stand would lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such order, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Rehearing of matter in the guise of review is impermissible in law. Exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reviewing any order. 6. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others - (1997) 8 SCC 715 , it was held by the Supreme Court that 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 the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. In exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. In exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. There is a clear distinction between the erroneous decision and error apparent on the face of record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected only by exercise of review jurisdiction. 7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in these review petitions which are accordingly dismissed. 8. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of connected file.