ORDER : Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this review petition under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, being aggrieved by order dated 08/09/2020 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 619/2011 (Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. Kanhaiyalal & Anr.). 2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioners had filed a miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the award dated 30/11/2010 passed in Case No. 5/98 W.C.A. (Fatal) by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, whereby Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior has awarded Rs. 2,24,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award. Review Petitioners in aforesaid miscellaneous appeal had prayed that the interest be given from the date of the accident and not from the date of award. It was also prayed that the trial Court has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, whereas it should be at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. The aforesaid prayers in miscellaneous appeal were partly allowed by this Court by directing that the appellants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of accident, i.e. 29/01/1998, whereas this Court had declined to interfere with the rate of interest, i.e. 6% awarded by the trial Court. Hence, this review petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, this Court has observed as under:- "9. So far as the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court is concerned, it is apparent that the accident relates to the year 1998, therefore, the rate of interest, i.e. 6% awarded by the trial Court is correct and warrants no interference by this Court." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that provision is mandatory in nature, therefore rate of interest cannot be awarded below 12% per annum. Hence, prayed that the order dated 08/09/2020 passed in M.A. No. 619/2011 may be corrected by enhancing the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum. 6. Hence, prayed that the order dated 08/09/2020 passed in M.A. No. 619/2011 may be corrected by enhancing the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the review petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed in the cases of Pratap Narayan Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), Saberabibi Yakobbhai Shaik and others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others, 2014 ACJ 467 , Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2015 ACJ 936 , Jaya Biswal and others Vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. And another, 2016 ACJ 721 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the review petitioners and has submitted that no any ground is raised, therefore review petition is not maintainable. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the impugned order, they may file appeal against the order. Therefore the prayer made by learned counsel for the review petitioners is beyond the scope of review. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 . It is also submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record. Hence, prays for rejection of present review petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and perused the available record as well as impugned order. 10. This Court has specifically observed in paragraph 9 of the impugned order as under:- "9. So far as the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court is concerned, it is apparent that the accident relates to the year 1998, therefore, the rate of interest, i.e. 6% awarded by the trial Court is correct and warrants no interference by this Court." 11. There is specific application of mind and considering the year of accident, the rate of interest i.e. 6% per annum has been awarded, which is not an error on the face of record which can be cured at this stage through review petition. 12. In Union of India Vs. There is specific application of mind and considering the year of accident, the rate of interest i.e. 6% per annum has been awarded, which is not an error on the face of record which can be cured at this stage through review petition. 12. In Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 2008 (Gau) 161 , it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the review petition is limited, the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1316, the Apex Court held that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision. 13. The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code which provides that a review of an order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of evidence. But in the present case no new and important matter has been brought before the Court by the petitioners. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin point those errors. (See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 Cal 316 . 14. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the application for review cannot sit on appeal over the judgment or decree passed by it. The review petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment/order is to be considered on merits. [See: J.R. Raghupathy Vs. The Court while deciding the application for review cannot sit on appeal over the judgment or decree passed by it. The review petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment/order is to be considered on merits. [See: J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1988 SC 1681 , S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]. 15. As the incident was of the year 1998, therefore, considering the date of accident, this Court has intentionally observed in paragraph 9 of the impugned order that as the accident relates to the year 1998, therefore, the rate of interest i.e. 6% per annum was correctly awarded by the trial Court and the power is vested with the Court to consider the rate of interest. Therefore, there is no need to review the impugned order as the matter relates to Workmen's Compensation Act and aforesaid finding has been given after due consideration. 16. In view of above, the order passed by this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same by this Court. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.