JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed by this Court in LPAOW No. 31/2017 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 6 was disposed of and the competent authority was directed to re-notify the election of the Management Committee of Ex-Servicemen Cooperative Consumer Society, Udhampur and to conclude the same within one month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 14.09.2016 by which the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination forms of the candidates was well within the knowledge of respondent No. 6. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid order, the reasons were assigned for rejection and the respondent No. 6 was disqualified from contesting the election on the ground that he had remained treasurer of the society for fourteen long years. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. On behalf of the review petitioners who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the Letters Patent Appeal, the only submission which was made reads as under: "Mr. Meharban Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents has supported the order passed by the Special Tribunal, Jammu and affirmed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellant is disqualified in view of Rule 25 of the Rules, as the appellant holds the post of treasurer." 5. The scope of review is well settled in law, in the garb of review, a person cannot be permitted to de novo argue the case. In the instant case, the arguments sought to be raised in the review petition were never argued in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is also pertinent to mention that no explanation has been put-forth as to why the order dated 14.09.2016 rejecting the nomination forms of the candidates was not placed on record by the review petitioners either before the learned Single Judge or in the LPA. The petitioners have also failed to explain as to when they derived knowledge about the aforesaid order. In the absence of any explanation in this regard, the petitioners cannot be permitted to place reliance on the aforesaid document. 6. The petitioners have also failed to explain as to when they derived knowledge about the aforesaid order. In the absence of any explanation in this regard, the petitioners cannot be permitted to place reliance on the aforesaid document. 6. In the result, in our considered opinion, the order passed by us, neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.