JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the judgment dated 26.8.2010 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Review Petition No.7 of 2009, vide Annexure-6, dismissing the same. 2. The mother of the petitioners, Chanchala Dei as plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction impleading opposite parties 1 and 2 as defendants. The defendants filed a counter claim for a decree of mandatory injunction against the plaintiff directing her to remove encroachment from the suit land. The suit and counter claim were tried by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack. The suit was dismissed, whereas the counter claim was decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed R.F.A.No.54 of 2004 and R.F.A.No.55 of 2004 before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack, which were eventually dismissed. Thereafter she filed Review Petition No.7 of 2009 under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. to review the judgment on the ground that there were some mistakes in the appreciation of the evidence in the appeal. The vital documents could not be filed in the appeal since the same were not in existence till disposal of the appeal. Placing reliance on the mutation R.O.R. in respect of khata No.146 dated 7.4.2009 issued by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, a submission was advanced that out of Ac.0.13 dec. of land, the Tahasildar found that there is a private road over Ac.0.06 dec. of land and the balance Ac.0.07 dec. of land is homestead, which have been recorded in the R.O.R. The opposite parties have no semblance of right, title and interest over plot nos.1300 and 1300/2964. The petitioners have a right of passage over Ac.0.06 dec. appertaining to plot no.1300. The opposite parties filed objection stating inter alia that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The R.O.R. has been obtained by playing fraud. The entry in mutation R.O.R. neither creates nor extinguishes title. The R.O.R. was obtained after the judgment was delivered. They were not parties to the mutation proceeding and as such not bound by the same. The learned appellate court came to hold that finding of the learned trial court was confirmed in appeal on analysis of evidence on record. The judgment has attained finality. The mutation R.O.R. was obtained much after delivery of the judgment. Mutation of property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title. The learned appellate court came to hold that finding of the learned trial court was confirmed in appeal on analysis of evidence on record. The judgment has attained finality. The mutation R.O.R. was obtained much after delivery of the judgment. Mutation of property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title. Relying on the same, the judgment cannot be reviewed. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners argued with vehemence that mutation R.O.R. was not within the knowledge of the petitioners. The same could not be produced at the time of hearing of the appeal. Discovery of evidence is a ground of review. The same has a vital bearing in the case. In view of the same, the learned appellate court fell into patent error of law in allowing the application for review. 4. Per contra, Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The learned appellate court is justified in rejecting the application. 5. The jurisdiction and scope of review is no more res integra. After survey of the earlier decisions, the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others, AIR 2013 SC 3301 held as follows: “15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR 1954 SC 526 , to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275 : 2013 AIR SCW 2905. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 6. In Sow. Chandra Kanta and another v. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 , the apex Court held: “….. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 7. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 SC 2823 held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. 8. Judged on the touchstone of the judicially recognized grounds of review, this Court is of the opinion that the learned lower appellate court considered the rival contentions of the parties and affirmed the findings of the learned trial court. Mere plausibility of different deductions in the same factual and legal setting would not proprio vigore warrant a review the decision rendered. Such an eventuality per se does not tantamount to an error on the face of the record or attest an acknowledged vitiating infirmity to justify review of a judicial verdict. The review jurisdiction is not akin to one of appeal. Such an eventuality per se does not tantamount to an error on the face of the record or attest an acknowledged vitiating infirmity to justify review of a judicial verdict. The review jurisdiction is not akin to one of appeal. The order of the learned lower appellate court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. The petition is dismissed. No costs.