JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present review petition, under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for review of judgment dated 20.06.2019, passed by this Court in RSA No. 226 of 2016. 2. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that this Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the learned lower Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the findings with respect to wajib-ul-arz nor this Court has taken these facts into consideration, so the impugned judgment be reviewed and set aside, as the same is against the settled law. 3. On the other hand, Sh. Kalyan Singh, has argued that this Court has taken into consideration the each and every aspect of the matter, as such, no ground for review is made out and the present petition deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record in detail. 5. As far as the easement is concerned, this Court has specifically held in the judgment, which is under review that it was one tenement, which was owned by the mother of the parties earlier and it was divided between two brothers, i.e. the petitioner and the respondent. It was part of one tenement, as the servient tenement serves the dominant tenement and the matter falls under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, however, it is not an easement of prescription raised and wajib-ul-arz was properly appreciated. Further, for review, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , has stipulated the grounds when the review will be maintainable. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under: 20.1. 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. 7. 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. 7. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359 has held that, if a reasoning in the judgment under review is at variance with the clear and simple language in a statute, the judgment under review suffers from a manifest error of law and if an error is apparent on the face of the record, only then the Court can reverse or modify its decision. 8. This Court after going through the record finds that there is no error apparent on the face of judgment, which calls for review. So, the review petition is not maintainable and dismissed as such. No order as to costs.