JUDGMENT & ORDER : By means of this petition, filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, the defendant-respondent-petitioners have sought review of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2016 delivered by this Court in RSA 46 of 2013. 2. From mere perusal, it would be apparent that RSA 46 of 2013 arose from the judgment dated 03.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.22 of 2012. On the other hand, the said judgment and order dated 03.08.2013 arose from the order dated 23.05.2012 delivered in case No.TS(P) 30 of 1999 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udaipur whereby the report of the Survey Commissioner dated 17.11.2011 has been accepted by discarding a further report by the Survey Commissioner, without a writ or leave of that court, purportedly for correcting some errors. The first appeal before the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur was structured against the said rejection. By the order dated 03.08.2013, the order dated 23.05.2012 was interfered with and it was directed to accept the Survey Commissioner’s subsequent report for correction of errors, as it appears on a different interpretation of Order 26, Rule 14(2) of the CPC. By the judgment dated 05.09.2016 delivered in RSA 46 of 2013, this court set aside the judgment dated 03.08.2013 and restored the judgment and final decree dated 23.05.2012 and 01.06.2012 respectively in TS(P) 30 of 1999. For purpose of review, as it has transpired from the petition, the undernoted grounds of objection have been sought to be pressed: (i) The statement of the Survey Commissioner in his crossexamination that the land under Khatian No.187 is within the suit land and is in possession of the defendant-respondent-petitioners by constructing the building thereon was not brought to the notice of this court at the time of hearing of the second appeal being RSA 46 of 13. But in the Survey Commissioner’s report as accepted by the trial court, it has been allocated in the share of the plaintiff-appellant-respondents. But in the Survey Commissioner’s report as accepted by the trial court, it has been allocated in the share of the plaintiff-appellant-respondents. (ii) Since the allocation of share has been made following the principle of possession, the said allocation relating to the land pertaining to Khatian No.187 [plot No.845 measuring 0.15 acre] is grossly improper inasmuch as the Survey Commissioner has shown the permanent structure on the said plot which is further shown to be in possession of the plaintiffs and the Survey Commissioner therefore made an attempt to correct the said mistake along with other mistakes by filing the subsequent report dated 06.02.2012. Non-consideration of the said report would cause serious loss to the defendant-respondent-petitioners. 3. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has fervently urged this court that the judgment dated 05.09.2016 is liable to be reviewed on those grounds. There is no dispute that after the preliminary decree dated 27.03.2001 as delivered in Title Appeal No.09 of 1997 and Title Appeal (Cross Objection) No.14 of 1997 the parties had failed to partition the suit land amicably, according to the share declared by the said preliminary decree. As a result, a Survey Commissioner was appointed for demarcating the share of the parties so that, based on the said report, the final decree may be passed for purpose of causing partition by metes and bounds. From perusal of records it transpires that Survey Commissioner was asked by the order dated 29.3.11 in the suit to allocate the suit land to the plaintiffs and the defendants according to their entitlement i.e. 38725/100000 and 61275/150. By the report dated 17.11.2011, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit, filed in this petition, the Survey Commissioner has allocated the land according to the aforesaid shares and made some observations. Along with the said report, a map showing the allocated land has been submitted. Against the said report, the defendant-respondent-petitioners raised some objections, on the same aspects as raised in this petition but the said objection was not allowed by the trial court and the said order dated 11.10.2012 was challenged by the defendant-respondent-petitioners in CRP No.16/2012 before this court. This court by the order dated 04.04.2012 allowed the said petition granting the opportunity to the parties to examine the Survey Commissioner, for elucidating clarification etc. In the terms of the said order dated 04.04.2012, the Survey Commissioner was examined. This court by the order dated 04.04.2012 allowed the said petition granting the opportunity to the parties to examine the Survey Commissioner, for elucidating clarification etc. In the terms of the said order dated 04.04.2012, the Survey Commissioner was examined. Thereafter, the said report was accepted by the trial court but the trial court did not entertain the suo motu report of the Survey Commissioner for correction of some part of his report. 4. After the challenge in the first appeal, when the order accepting the Survey Commissioner’s report dated 17.11.2011 was interfered by the judgment dated 03.08.2013 at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant-respondents, as stated, a second appeal being RSA No.46 of 2013 was preferred and after hearing the said judgment dated 03.08.2013 was set aside and the judgment of the trial court dated 23.05.2012 was restored. 5. On a keen reading of the grounds, it appears to this court that the premise on which fundamentally the objections are structured that the Survey Commissioner allocated the land on the basis of the possession of the parties is not borne in the writ issued by the court of first instance and the defendant-respondent-petitioners have annexed such writ with their petition being Annexure 2. Even on perusal of the Survey Commissioner’s report, it appeared to this court that the Survey Commissioner made an attempt to save the possession of the respective parties but that was practicable, meaning allocation on the basis of possession of the respective parties. In the judgment dated 05.09.2016 all the relevant aspects were considered and it was observed as under: “When the report was submitted in compliance to the writ of the court, the Survey Commissioner cannot be allowed to submit a corrected version or a supplementary report without the order or leave of the court. If such corrected version or the supplementary report is filed that cannot be accepted in the evidence. Thus, the report filed by the Survey Commissioner on 06.02.2012 is without authority and its cognizance is not sustainable.” 6. In view of the said finding this court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the defendant-respondent-petitioners inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of the records and the contentions as raised do not emanate from a new discovery or it is even not manifest on the face of the records. In view of the said finding this court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the defendant-respondent-petitioners inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of the records and the contentions as raised do not emanate from a new discovery or it is even not manifest on the face of the records. Law has been quite lucidly enunciated by the apex court in S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 by laying the law as under: “12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests formulated above. ****************************** 26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly applied the said principles as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. An error as referred under Rule 1, Order 47 of the CPC for permitting a review must be such, which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched and for which no fresh inquiry is required. The Survey Commissioner’s crossexamination did not debase his report. Moreover, his observation in respect of the possession over the land hardly has any relevance in the context of accepting the report. His oral statement as to possession of the said land even is not based on his filed diary. That apart, the account of shares as made in the report would have been unsettled leaving the report inconsequential. Having observed thus, this court is of the considered view that this petition does not merit any consideration and accordingly the same is dismissed.