ORDER: 1. These review applications are filed against the common order dated 28.3.2017 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1376, 1377 and 590 of 2011 on the file of this Court. 2. The applicant herein is the wife of the original petitioner C.Govindaraj in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1376, 1377 and 590 of 2011 filed against the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore in E.A.Nos.3 of 2011 in E.P.No.126 of 1994 and E.A.No.4 of 2011 in E.A.No.3 of 2011 in E.P.No.126 of 1994 and order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in E.P.No.126 of 1994 in Arbitration No.83 of 1993. 3. By a common order dated 28.03.2017, this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “22. In the result: (a) all these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge in E.A.No.4 of 2011 and E.A.No.3 of 2011 in E.P.No.126 of 1994 in Arbitration Case No.83 of 1993 dated 28.3.2011 is confirmed; After pronouncing the order, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Singaravelan, appearing for the petitioner in all the Civil revision petitions represented that apart from this proceedings, the petitioners already initiated separate proceedings by filing a suit in O.S.No.574 of 2009 and application under Section 47 of C.P.C. are pending and requested this Court that the above two proceedings may go on without prejudice of the order of dismissal. 2. Considering his request, I am inclined to pass the following order: The Dismissal of these three civil revision petitions will not be prejudiced in ay way to the pending proceedings in O.S.No.574 of 2009 and application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. and the courts concern is hereby directed to deal the matter independently. (b) the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore is hereby directed to proceed with delivery of the petition mentioned property to the 1st respondent herein; and (c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without giving adjournment to either parties; (d) after completing the procedure, the learned Judge is directed to file report before this Court within 15 days thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 4. I heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials available on record. 5. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 4. I heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials available on record. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant herein is the wife of late C.Govindaraj, who was the original petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions. She submits that since the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions affects applicant's right to the property in question, she preferred these review applications. 6. The grievance of the applicant is that this Court committed an error in taking note of the fact that the original petitioner Govindaraj passed away on 03.06.2012 and a petition seeking to implead the legal heirs by way of substitution was filed. Despite pendency of the said petition, the Court has passed the order dismissing the Civil Revision Petitions. Further grievance of the applicant is that this Court committed an error in taking note of the fact that liberty was given to the petitioner to proceed with the suit filed by Govindaraj and also petition under Section 47 of C.P.C. According to the applicant, the respondent auction purchaser is trying to knock the valuable property worth more than a crore for the meagre amount of Rs.40,400/- taking advantage of the exparte Award of the Arbitrator. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order under review and therefore, no review is warranted. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, let us refer to the principles of review. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114 C.P.C. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. It may allow review on three specific grounds, namely, "(1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (3) for any other sufficient reason." 9. The review proceeding is not by way of an appeal. The review proceeding is not by way of an appeal. In the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the review must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record and re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction, which is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (( 1979 (4) SCC 389 ), speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: “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 the 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 on 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 power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.” 9. 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 power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.” 9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale ( AIR 1960 SC 137 ), wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: 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, 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." 10. In yet another case in Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Limited, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ".... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible...... In yet another case in Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Limited, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ".... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible...... If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. 11. Considering the scope of review jurisdiction and holding mistake or error apparent on the face of the record must be self evident and does not require a process of reasoning. In a case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.( AIR 1964 SC 1372 = (1964) 5 SCR 174 ) (SCR at p.186) this Court opined: “What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 12. Holding that the review is not an appeal in disguise and that the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, this was considered in a case of Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs, reported in ( (2009) 14 SCC 663 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: ".... 8. An application for review will lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai (2007) 15 SCC 513 ), this Court held: "6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed." 9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is permissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 , this Court held (SCC p. 251, para 56): "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."... 13. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 , the error must be apparent on the face of the record i.e., error must be self-evident and not which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or which has to be searched. In other words, it must be an error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. Under the guise of review, parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only if such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for controversy with regard to such error, which stares at the face even by a mere glance of the judgement. 14. In the light of the well settled principles, this Court has to consider the contentions raised. 14. In the light of the well settled principles, this Court has to consider the contentions raised. The points falling for consideration are: (1) Whether the common order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record? (2) Whether there is patent/manifest error warranting review of the common order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions? 15. As stated above, the main grievance of the applicant is that since the original petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions died and in spite of pendency of petition to implead the legal heirs, the Court has proceeded to pass an order dismissing the Civil Revision Petitions. The other contention of the applicant is liberty was given to the original petitioner to proceed with the suit and petition filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. 16. As far as merits of CRP.Nos.1376 and 1377 of 2017 is concerned, this Court, in paragraph 19 of its order, after elaborately discussing the submissions of the learned counsel for the original petitioner and the respondents, observed that “a perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Principal District Judge has passed a detailed order while deciding E.A.No.3 and 4 of 2011 and therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the learned Judge has passed a non-speaking order in the above application is not acceptable.” Qua CRP.No.590 of 2011, this Court, in paragraph 20 held that the aforesaid CRP is not maintainable either in law or on facts. When such being the observation of this Court, how the applicant can file review application to review the said order. 17. Admittedly, in the operative portion of the order under review, this Court passed an order to the effect that "the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions will not be prejudiced in any way to the pending proceedings in O.S.No.574 of 2009 and application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. and the Courts concern directed to deal the matter independently". Therefore, pendency of those proceedings is not the ground for reviewing the order. Moreover, if any right of the applicant is affected, she could very well agitate her right in an appropriate proceedings. 18. As observed above, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions is a reasoned order with elaborate discussion of the respective counsel and I find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, if any right of the applicant is affected, she could very well agitate her right in an appropriate proceedings. 18. As observed above, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions is a reasoned order with elaborate discussion of the respective counsel and I find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Further, the applicant has not pointed out any specific error in the order. The demise of the original petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions is not a ground for reviewing the order. The issues decided on merits hold water despite the demise of the original petitioner. There is no patent/manifest error warranting review of the common order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions. 19. The uniform principle that runs through catena of decisions is that "a mistake apparent on record" must be obvious and apparent mistake and not something, which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. The points raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in my considered view, are upon the merits of the matter and the Review Court, sitting as Appellate Court and exercising Appellate jurisdiction, cannot go into the merits of own findings. 20. As stated above, review proceeding is not by way of an appeal and that the review must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record and re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not permissible. 21. Upon careful consideration of the points urged by the applicant, in my considered view, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 28.03.2017 and the review applications are liable to be dismissed. 22. 21. Upon careful consideration of the points urged by the applicant, in my considered view, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 28.03.2017 and the review applications are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result: (a) these Review Petitions are dismissed by confirming the orders in CRP(NPD)Nos.1376, 1377 and 590 of 2011, dated 28.03.2017 passed by this Court; (b) the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, is hereby directed to proceed with delivery of the petitioned property to the 1st respondent by impleading G.Lakshmi as Legal Representative of C.Govindaraj as ordered by this Court dated 28.03.2017 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without giving adjournments to either parties; (c) the suit in O.S.No.574 of 2009 and the petition filed under Section 47 of C.P.C., the Court concern is hereby directed to deal the same independently. (d) No costs. Consequently, CMP.Nos.17323 to 17325 of 2017 are closed.