JUDGMENT 1. This review petition is filed by the applicant/respondent No. 3, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) seeking review of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in D.B. S.A.W. No. 100/2022: Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. by this Court whereby, the special appeal preferred by the respondents/appellants was allowed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 i.e. IBPS being a recruiting agency conducted selections against vacancies pertaining to Officer Scale-II (General Banking Officer) (GBO) pursuant to Common Recruitment Process for 43 Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)-IX (CRP-RRBs-IX) initiated vide notification dated 01.07.2020. The entire selection process attained finality on 03.02.2021 with the provisional allotment of candidates to the participating RRBs. The Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank (BRKGB) initially requested to notify vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO), which were included in the questioned selection process, however, vide letter dated 18.12.2020 BRKGB withdrew the vacancies. Therefore, no candidate was provisionally allotted to BRKGB on 03.02.2021. Later on, BRKGB vide another communication dated 05.02.2021 asked IBPS to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO). The IBPS declined the request so made by BRKGB. A direction was sought by the appellants (respondent Nos. 3 to 21) against IBPS to fill up 126 vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates as per merit and preference to BRKGB. This court vide order dated 18.08.2022, allowed the special appeal. The operative portion of order dated 18.08.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference:- "In the light of above discussion, the special appeal is allowed. IBPS is directed to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs." 3. Mr. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs." 3. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent No. 3 submitted that the Division Bench in its order dated 18.08.2022 failed to consider that candidates had already been provisionally allotted to RRBs, therefore, direction to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference will have serious repercussions as the entire process has to be notified and the persons already working will be disturbed. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that re-allotment will infringe the rights of the allotted candidates as they were not party before this Court in the present litigation. Further, other 41 RRBs, NABARD (Regulator) and Bank of Baroda (sponsor bank) ought to have been impleaded as party to the proceedings before this Court. 5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that BRKGB, after provisional allotment to the RRBs on the basis merit-cum-preference vide letter dated 05.02.2021, requested to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO). The revised request made by BRKGB does not appear to be bona fide as it was apparently made to safeguard its own employees who were candidates for CRP-RRBs-IX. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Section 114 of CPC, the substantive provision dealing with the ambit and scope of review reads as follows: "Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit." 8. Order 47 elucidates the grounds for filing a review application, which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference "1. Order 47 elucidates the grounds for filing a review application, which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]" 9. In the case of Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheik Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under: "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Col. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs Union of India reported in (1980) Supp SCC 562 observed that review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. 11. In the case of Lilly Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court was pleased to hold 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. 12. In the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court summarised the principles for exercising review jurisdiction as below: "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) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 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, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (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, undermines 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." 13. In view of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that a judgment is open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the court to exercise its powers of review. 14. We are constrained to observe that review of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. S.A.W. 100/2022: Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. has been sought by IBPS which is simply the recruiting agency to whom, the process of selection was outsourced on grounds which were never argued/agitated before us during the course of final hearing of the special appeal. The attempt to find out error in the order by agitating new arguments or repeating old and overruled arguments cannot be permitted to be raised for review of the judgment which does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner/respondent No. 3 has miserably failed to bring any ground before this Court that could entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction of this Court. 16. In the result, the review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 17. No order as to costs.