JUDGMENT I.A. No.1679 of 2020 1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 88 days in preferring the present review. 2. Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in para-3 sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly delay is condoned. 3. I.A. No.1679 of 2020 stands allowed. Civil Review No. No.17 of 2018 1. This review application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 31.08.2017, passed in M.A. No.221 of 2015, whereby interest @9% has been awarded on the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs). 2. Learned counsel, for the petitioner, while relying on the decision in the case of Tahzhthe Purazil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2009) ACJ 2444 , has submitted that 6% interest should have been awarded on the compensation amount. On the above ground, it is prayed by the learned counsel that the interest of 9% awarded by order dated 31.08.2017 in M.A. No.221 of 2015 be recalled and the rate of interest be modified to 6% per annum. 3. Heard. In terms of provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the scope of review is very limited and such power of review must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, 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 can be exercised where there is some arithmetical or clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. However, the prayer of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous, since such question can be challenged before the appellate forum. 4. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 , in paragraph nos.7 & 9, 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. 4. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 , in paragraph nos.7 & 9, 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. (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. 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''. 5. It is settled proposition that a review cannot be a disguise in appeal. The petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record with respect to the order dated 31.08.2017, passed in M.A. No.221 of 2015. 6. 5. It is settled proposition that a review cannot be a disguise in appeal. The petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record with respect to the order dated 31.08.2017, passed in M.A. No.221 of 2015. 6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made here-in-above, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order dated 31.08.2017 passed in M.A. No.221 of 2015 for modifying and reducing the awarded interest from 9% to 6%. 7. In the result, this review is, hereby, dismissed.