JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner has sought review of the judgment passed by this Court on 15.10.2022 in CWP No. 1610 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 came to be allowed and thereby the creation of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni was quashed, however, the official-respondents were granted liberty to create the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, in accordance with law. 2. The petitioners claimed that even though they are affected parties being the elected representatives of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, yet they were not made parties in the writ petition and, therefore, any decision passed behind their back is bad in law. In addition to that, it is claimed that this Court ought not to have quashed the entire notification constituting the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, merely, on account of non-inclusion of certain khasra numbers (about 29), which were not included in the initial proposal but were included in the official notification dated 27.10.2020. 3. According to the petitioner, as per settled law, whenever any legislation or consequential decision is sought to be interpreted, firstly violation of Constitutional right or statutory right is to be identified. Thereafter, to save the said piece of legislation/decision, secondly, the principle of reading down is applied to give harmonious construction to achieve the purpose of the legislation. Thirdly, the principle of severability is to be applied so that the offending part is removed provided the remaining part achieves the purpose and object of the legislation. In the instant case, even if 29 khasra numbers are added in the final notification which were not part of the proposed notification, at the most the final notification dated 27.10.2020 should have been quashed to the extent of 29 khasra numbers only and remaining about 475 khasra numbers could continue to validly constitute a legal and valid municipality. 4. Lastly, it has been averred that Nagar Panchayat has received grant of Rs. 38,99,760/-for the Financial Year 2020-21, Rs. 1,20,42,773/- in Financial Year 2021-22 and Rs. 1,18,56,212/- as grant in Financial Year 2022-23. Out of this, upto November, 2022, an amount of Rs. 1,18,37,917/- has been spent and the remaining amount is to be spent for different developmental activities in different wards of Nagar Panchayat, Anni. 38,99,760/-for the Financial Year 2020-21, Rs. 1,20,42,773/- in Financial Year 2021-22 and Rs. 1,18,56,212/- as grant in Financial Year 2022-23. Out of this, upto November, 2022, an amount of Rs. 1,18,37,917/- has been spent and the remaining amount is to be spent for different developmental activities in different wards of Nagar Panchayat, Anni. By quashing the notification dated 27.10.2020 constituting Nagar Panchayat, Anni itself, grave injustice would be caused to the inhabitants of the Nagar Panchayat who would be deprived of the benefit of the developmental activities already started in the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat, Anni. 5. Learned Advocate General as also the private respondents have vehemently contested the petition and it is averred that the present petition has been rendered academic in view of the subsequent developments whereby the exercise to constitute the Nagar Panchayat, Anni, has already been initiated. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either filed or on perusal of the record what needs to be considered at this juncture is the fact that High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction definitely has the power to review its order, however, the subject to the limitation, which is otherwise prescribed or envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through LRs & Ors vs. Sinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. (2021) 13 SCC 1, after taking notice of various judicial precedents on the subject of review in a writ jurisdiction has held as under:- 33. In State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457 this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 465-66, para 27) “27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review.” 34. In Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn., (2007) 9 SCC 369 this Court held that after rejecting the original application filed by the appellant, there was no justification for the Tribunal to review its order and allow the revision of the appellant. In Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn., (2007) 9 SCC 369 this Court held that after rejecting the original application filed by the appellant, there was no justification for the Tribunal to review its order and allow the revision of the appellant. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below: (SCC p. 387, para 40) “40. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own judgment. Even after the microscopic examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own judgment. This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Sinha, J.) that the Tribunal has travelled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not address us on this very vital aspect.” 35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.” 8. The judgment in Ram Sahu's case (supra) was thereafter considered by three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. Narayana eddy & Ors. (2022) 12 Scale 261 , wherein it was held as under:- 10. The core argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the High Court ought not to have entertained successive review petitions filed by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record, for allowing the review applications, must be put to test by examining the relevant provisions of law that governs review jurisdiction. 11. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states 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." 12. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: "1. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: "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. 1[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.] " 13. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 14. In Col. 14. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others, 1980 Supp SCC 562, this Court observed that a 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. The observations made are as under: "12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674 this Court observed : '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.' " (emphasis added) 15. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one thathas to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court 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. this Court opined: '11. 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. 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 characterized 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.' 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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 this 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'". [emphasis added] 16. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily Thomas(supra), this Court held as under : "54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: "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.' Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that after an application for review has been disposed of no further application shall be entertained in the same matter. XXX XXX XXX 56. It follows, therefore, 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. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment. XXX XXX XXX 58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact (1995) 3 SCC 635 , Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and others vs. Union of India and others addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words "any-other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1955 PC 1955 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 1955 SCR 520 . Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa 1955 SCR 250 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad AIR 1955 SC 233 , it was held: "It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error, cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. Mr. Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, CJ in - 'Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality' ILR 1953 Bom 191, that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance." (emphasis added) 17. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others, this Court observed as follows: "10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added) 18. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added) 18. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501 , where it was held thus: "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. 12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted." (emphasis added) 19. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 , this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 , this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case 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 vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 1955 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 . 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. (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. (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." 20. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389 , this Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court with the following observations: "3 ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab 26 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence 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 may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." (emphasis added) 21. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." (emphasis added) 21. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612 , this Court emphasized the requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus: "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier." (emphasis added) 22. In the captioned judgment, the term 'mistake or error apparent' has been discussed in the following words: "22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision". (emphasis added) 23. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision". (emphasis added) 23. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, this Court explained as to when a review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus: "18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court". (emphasis added) 24. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844 , this Court held as follows: "4..... It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order......." (emphasis added) 25. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order......." (emphasis added) 25. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others (supra), citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, this Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review. 26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an 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 under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others 1955 SCR 520 ). 27. In the light of the legal position crystalized above, let us now examine the grievance raised by the appellant. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken great pains to discuss the three circumstances available under Order XLVII CPC for maintaining a review application and observed that in the instant case, the respondents had stated before this Court that they had in their possession, genuine documents relating to surrender of the protected tenancy rights in respect of the subject land and in view of the said submission, the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal were disposed of with an observation that if the respondents were able to obtain such documents, it would be open to them to file a review petition before the High Court. What is relevant is that this Court had even then declined to interfere with the findings on merits returned by the High Court vide Judgment dated 09th July, 2013; nor was the review order dated 20th February, 2014, interfered with. Under the garb of the liberty granted to them to approach the High Court again, all that the respondents have done is to obtain certified copies of the revenue records in respect of the subject land and enclosed them with the second set of review petitions. This is so when photocopies of the said documents had been filed by them earlier. 9. Bearing in mind the legal position, we now proceed to examine the grievances of the petitioners. The first contention of the petitioners that they despite being a necessary and proper party(ies) were not arrayed as party(ies). 10. This is so when photocopies of the said documents had been filed by them earlier. 9. Bearing in mind the legal position, we now proceed to examine the grievances of the petitioners. The first contention of the petitioners that they despite being a necessary and proper party(ies) were not arrayed as party(ies). 10. The issue probably has been rendered academic as the petitioners have already been afforded due opportunity of hearing before this Court and, thus, cannot make a grievance at this stage, especially, when the same does not affect the merits of the case. 11. According to the petitioners, the Court could not have quashed the order constituting the Nagar Panchayat, Anni in its entirety and should have applied the principle of severability so that the offending party of the notification alone could be removed and remaining notification kept intact. 12. Strong reliance in this behalf is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 7 SCC 59 , more particularly, the observations, which read as under:- 83 It is, thus, clear that in exercise of power of judicial review, Indian Courts are invested with powers to strike down primary legislation enacted by the Parliament or the State legislatures. However, while undertaking this exercise of judicial review, the same is to be done at three levels. In the first stage, the Court would examine as to whether impugned provision in a legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights or the Constitutional provisions (substantive judicial review) or it falls foul of the federal distribution of powers (procedural judicial review). If it is not found to be so, no further exercise is needed as challenge would fail. On the other hand, if it is found that Legislature lacks competence as the subject legislated was not within the powers assigned in the list in VII Schedule, no further enquiry is needed and such a law is to be declared as ultravires the Constitution. However, while undertaking substantive judicial review, if it is found that the impugned provision appears to be violative of fundamental rights or other Constitutional rights, the Court reaches the second stage of review. However, while undertaking substantive judicial review, if it is found that the impugned provision appears to be violative of fundamental rights or other Constitutional rights, the Court reaches the second stage of review. At this second phase of enquiry, the Court is supposed to undertake the exercise as to whether the impugned provision can still be saved by reading it Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of 2017 & Ors. Page 97 down so as to bring it in conformity with the Constitutional provisions. If that is not achievable then the enquiry enters the third stage. If the offending portion of the statute is severable, it is severed and the Court strikes down the impugned provision declaring the same as unconstitutional. 13. We have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. Firstly, it needs to be mentioned that this review petition came up for consideration before this Court on 18.05.2023, when the following order came to be passed:- List on 19.05.2023, when the respondents shall impart specific instructions with regard to the status of the notification that was issued after the decision of this Court under Section 5(2) of the H.P. Municipal Act. 14. In compliance to the aforesaid, official-respondents have placed on record instructions dated 18.05.2023, which go to indicate that the notification under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 for the inclusion of some of the additional areas in Nagar Panchayat, Anni vide Notification No. UD-A(3)-2/2020, dated 16.05.2023 has already been issued. 15. Noticeably, the petitioners have taken no steps to question or assail this notification nor made any statement before the Court that they intend to challenge the notification so issued. Even otherwise, we find that the doctrine of severability as sought to be applied in the instant case would paralyse the workability of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni as it is not at all feasible to apply the said doctrine. After all, Anni comprises of hilly terrain and leaving out 29 khasra numbers would mean that after intermittent intervals, some land would be belonging to the Nagar Panchayats while some land belonging now to the Gram Panchayat, thereby creating a complete chaos, which would not only hamper but would rather bring the working of the Nagar Panchayat, Anni to a grinding halt. After all, the solution have to be found that are not only pragmatic but also practical. 16. After all, the solution have to be found that are not only pragmatic but also practical. 16. Lastly and more importantly, the petitioners have not been able to point out how there is an error apparent on the face of the record and has simply argued only on the principle of severability, which as observed above, is not at all applicable to the instant case. 17. Consequently, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.