ORDER : Prayer: Petitions filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to review the orders passed in CRP(MD)Nos.2249, 2250 and 2251 of 2010 dated Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.127 to 129 of 2019 14.06.2019 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, in CMA(CS)Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2007 dated 29.01.2010 by confirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thoothukudi, dated 27.06.2006 in S.C.Nos.19, 18 and 17 of 2005. 1. These review applications are filed to review the common order made in CRP(MD)Nos.2249, 2250 and 2251 of 2010 dated 14.06.2019. 2. Record of proceedings shows that from 30.07.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner has been continuously taking adjournments and the matter has been posted on 14.08.2019, 26.08.2019, 03.08.2019 and 12.09.2019. Today also, a learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the petitioner sought adjournment. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass orders on merits. 3. Against the dismissal of the appeals challenging the surcharge proceedings of the 1st respondent, the review petitioner has filed the above revisions which were dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 14.06.2019, wherein, this Court has specifically found that the enquiry officer after elaborate enquiries and scrutiny of documents and accounts found that the petitioner/Secretary of the Society and other officer bearers have misappropriated the funds of the Society by creating fictitious documents and by deliberately omitting entires in the day book ledger etc. This Court also found that the enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry by due process of law and that the petitioner also had not denied the fact that there were losses to the society on account of the allegations in the show cause notice and based on the enquiry report, surcharge proceedings were initiated which was confirmed in the appeals filed by the petitioner. Perusal of the grounds raised in the review applications also shows that the points canvassed in the revision petitions are again re-agitated under the garb of review. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the common order passed in the revision petitions. 4. The power of this Court in matters of review is very limited. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the common order passed in the revision petitions. 4. The power of this Court in matters of review is very limited. Such power can be exercised only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or in the event an order is not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, we may usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Union of India, rep by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:- "10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320 , [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows" "12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......." In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles as under: "19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII 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: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute: 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). Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute: 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 record; (iii). Any other sufficient reason. The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, 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 Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275. 20.2. 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, undermine 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." 5. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, it may be mentioned that the review is not an appeal in disguise and therefore, this Court cannot consider any of the new materials, which were not placed before the Court, argued and not considered. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, it may be mentioned that the review is not an appeal in disguise and therefore, this Court cannot consider any of the new materials, which were not placed before the Court, argued and not considered. Applying the said legal principles to the facts of the present case, if the grounds of review are analysed, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed. Thus, the present Review Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Applications are dismissed. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is always open to him to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if he so desires. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.