ORDER : 1. The Court: This memorandum of review is a manifestation of displeasure of the applicants over the judgement passed in APO No.128 of 2021 together with APO No.129 of 2021 by which the appeals in application being APO No.128 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 and APO No.129 of 2021 with IA GA No.1 of 2021 were allowed and consequent thereupon interim order passed on July 17, 2019 was restored and the interim order passed at the time of admission of appeal on 30th April, 2021 was confirmed. 2. It is contended that certain material facts, though recorded in the judgement, might not have been considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing the judgement under review and such non-consideration of material facts warrants the review of the judgement in order to maintain the judicial propriety. It is further contended that this Court while considering the merit of the appeal did not appreciate the fact that the ledger of the applicant was used to be maintained by the vendor/TCL, the opposite party herein which perhaps escaped the attention of this Court and as such it was observed:- “This is in fact a claim for an unpaid vendor for the remaining part of the consideration amount receivable for the goods sold and supplied.” 3. It is averred by the applicant that the observation of this Court that “At the time of admission of appeal on 30th April, 2021 the earlier interim order was restored and is still in force.” whereas order dated April 30, 2021 would suggest that an undertaking was given by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents not to deal with their properties for a limited period which however, was extended from time to time but no specific interim order was ever passed or ever restored to that effect by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 4. According to the applicants, the observation of this Court is that “The documents relied upon by the appellants were part of the record of the interlocutory proceedings. 4. According to the applicants, the observation of this Court is that “The documents relied upon by the appellants were part of the record of the interlocutory proceedings. The respondents in the affidavits have not come out with any material document to contradict the findings arrived by KPMG and later BDO during forensic audit” whereas the attachment to the email dated 4th June, 2018 that had been sent by the Opposite party on their own to the applicants attaching their system generated (SAP generated) ledger till 30th March, 2018 would show that the basic contention of the opposite party was infructuous ab-initio. The same were produced along with the affidavits but seems to have escaped the notice or attention of this Court. 5. It is further contention of the applicants that this Court had no reasons to observe that the reports of KPMG and BDO would show that the respondents had knowledge of their irregular transaction and they were consulted before the reports were prepared. Such observation is far from being correct inasmuch as the opposite party could not produce a single document to substantiate the facts that the applicants were ever consulted by KPMG or BDO. 6. According to the applicants, this Court though recorded at two places that the applicant/respondents had produced and relied upon the email communication dated June 4, 2018, issued by the appellant which discloses the total actual position in respect of three districts and wherefrom it would appear that after considering the entire accounts a sum of Rs.3.30 crores was receivable by the applicants/respondents, but such emails seems for all practical purposes were not considered by this Court while passing the judgement. According to the applicants, this Court failed to appreciate the fact that the credit note extended on June 4, 2018 pertains to 31st March, 2018 for 2017-18 fiscal year. 7. Such tabular statement relied upon by this Court had neither been referred to in the report of BDO nor had ever been enumerated by the opposite party. Therefore, according to the applicants non consideration of such essential facts have produced an erroneous finding. 8. The learned Counsel however, in all fairness has submitted that the review is confined to ground Six (vi) that concerns the non-consideration of the attachments to the email dated 4th June, 2018. Therefore, according to the applicants non consideration of such essential facts have produced an erroneous finding. 8. The learned Counsel however, in all fairness has submitted that the review is confined to ground Six (vi) that concerns the non-consideration of the attachments to the email dated 4th June, 2018. The said ground is reproduced below: “Vi) For that, this Hon’ble Court has held and observed that “the documents that are now relied upon by the appellants were part of the record of the interlocutory proceedings. The respondents in the affidavits have not come out with any material document to contradict the findings arrived by KPMG and later on BDO during forensic audit”, whereas, the attachments to the email dated 4th June, 2018 that had been sent by the opposite party/appellant on their own, to the applicant respondents attaching their system generated (SAP generated) ledger till 31st March, 2018, wherein it is irrefutably proved that the basic contention of the opposite party was infructuous ab-initio, were produced along with their affidavits but seems to have escaped the notice or attention of this Hon’ble Court.” 9. Briefly stated, Tata Chemicals Limited being aggrieved by the order dated 16th March, 2021, by which the interim order of injunction initially passed on 17th July, 2019 restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest in respect of the properties mention in Annexure – M in GA No.725 of 2019 and Annexure -R in GA No.735 of 2019 respectively was vacated at the time of final hearing of injunction application on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff in both the matters is for an unascertained sum and is an essentially a claim on account of damages for the alleged wrongdoing of the defendant in its deals and transactions with the plaintiff and for such an unascertained and unliquidated amount for damages no order of injunction could be granted, challenged the same in appeal being APO 128 of 2021 and APO 129 of 2021. 10. This Court, however, after hearing the parties passed the judgement under review reversing the finding of learned single Judge and thereby restoring the interim order passed on 17th July, 2019 and affirming the order passed on 30th April, 2021 at the time of admission of appeal. 11. 10. This Court, however, after hearing the parties passed the judgement under review reversing the finding of learned single Judge and thereby restoring the interim order passed on 17th July, 2019 and affirming the order passed on 30th April, 2021 at the time of admission of appeal. 11. At the outset, we would like to revisit the provision of review as laid down under order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which goes herein under:- “Order XLVII review 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.” 12. The power of review is circumscribed by order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Review jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction. The review proceedings are not meant for rehearing of appeal. The power of review can be exercised, inter alia, where some mistake or error is appellant on the face of the record. It may also be exercised on any analogous ground, but under no circumstances on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, that would fall within the exclusive domain of a court of appeal. 13. Mr. Subhamoy Bhattacharya, learned Counsel representing the applicant at the time of hearing submits that the email dated 4th June, 2018 was not considered by this Court while passing the judgement under review. Had the same been considered in its proper perspective, this Court would have pronounced judgement, different from the one under consideration for review, and would have affirmed the order challenged in the appeal by Tata Chemical Limited. The contention of Mr. Had the same been considered in its proper perspective, this Court would have pronounced judgement, different from the one under consideration for review, and would have affirmed the order challenged in the appeal by Tata Chemical Limited. The contention of Mr. Bhattacharya, however, does not inspire our confidence. 14. Upon perusal of the judgement under review, we find to have observed:- “It is true that both the dealers have filed their written statement with counter claim but by itself, in our view, is not a factor for not granting the order of injunction on a comparative analysis of the relative merits of the case. On the basis of the materials on record we feel that the plaintiff is entitled to some protection till the suit is decided.” 15. This observation unhesitatingly suggests that this Court had taken into consideration all the documents relied upon by the respective parties while the interim order was passed by the Learned Single Judge. This Court further observed :- “Learned Single Judge had considered all the emails exchanged between SKS and the distributors as the key documents since they lucidly revealed the modus operandi adopted by the respondents. The discounts due to distributors, the actual discounts extended to distributors, and the difference/excess credit paid to distributors are all disclosed in the interlocutory proceeding. The Single Judge had admonished the omission of the Counsels with reference to the same and decided to consider the emails while adjudicating the case at the interim stage.” 16. Mr. Bhattacharya, while placing the case for the respondents in course of hearing of the appeals, drawing the attention of the court to the email communication dated June 4, 2018 issued by the appellants, made his submission and after giving due consideration to such submission, this court passed the judgement under review. 17. In the instant case, we have considered all the relevant material including the e-mail and its attachment on which reliance have been placed now as a ground for review. 18. In fact as observed earlier the learned Single Judge dealt with the said e-mails and in our judgment we have affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge in relation to such e-mail. In fact the attachments were followed by the BDO Forensic Audit Report which is subsequent to the e-mail and later in point of time. 18. In fact as observed earlier the learned Single Judge dealt with the said e-mails and in our judgment we have affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge in relation to such e-mail. In fact the attachments were followed by the BDO Forensic Audit Report which is subsequent to the e-mail and later in point of time. In our judgment we have clearly stated that there are strong prima facie evidence suggesting a collusion between the employee of TATA with all the said dealers which would be reflected from the two reports. 19. We have accepted the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the two reports submitted by KPMG and BDO, have clearly revealed and laid bare the respondents’ method of operation in the alleged fraud, as well as quantification of the precise amount of extra credit passed on by the employee to the distributors. These reports are based on documents recovered from the employees’ computer and were categorical in their conclusion that TATA had been defrauded of a substantial amount of money by way of excess credit passed on distributors by the employee through a mechanism of fraud and collusion between the distributors and the employee. 20. As a part of reasoning for confirmation of the interim order we considered both the reports and made the following observations: “The documents that are not relied by the appellants were part of the record of the interlocutory proceedings. The respondents in the affidavits have not come out with any material document to contradict the findings arrived by KPMG and later on BDO during forensic audit. Both the reports would show that the respondents have knowledge of the irregular transactions and they were consulted before the reports were prepared. The e-mail exchanged between SKS and the dealers during the period of investigation are not seriously disputed. In the affidavit, all the respondents have the opportunity to deny the existence and contents of the e-mails exchanged between the parties during the aforesaid period. SKS had created a separate Id with password for the aforesaid transactions which clearly go to show that the said mechanism was consciously adopted to benefit the parties. The acquisition of assets by SKS during the aforesaid period of time without the source being disclosed faithfully in the affidavits, is a clear pointer to such interfere and a strong presumption of unscrupulous dealings. The acquisition of assets by SKS during the aforesaid period of time without the source being disclosed faithfully in the affidavits, is a clear pointer to such interfere and a strong presumption of unscrupulous dealings. There was no necessity for the dealers or SKS to admit receiving excess credit contemporaneously. They were in the know of things. They were not at all surprised having received the accounts showing excess credit during reconciliation. The immediate reaction was conciliation and not denial. Their stand in the affidavit was of confession and avoidance. They cannot go together. We have repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the dealers whether for the earlier periods they had received credits over and above the maximum cap earmarked for credit or rebates in the price circulars. We did not receive any satisfactory answer.” 21. By filing this application under consideration the applicants are inviting the Court to delve deep into factual matrix in order to locate the error. 22. It is well-settled principle of law that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised to the discovery of new and the important matter or evidence which after exercising of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him when the order was made; the power of review may be exercised where some mistakes or errors apparent on the face of record is found but it can never be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court on a point of fact on law. 23. In Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhuri case reported in 1995(1) SCC 170 Their Lordships held, while entertaining a review only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, it has to be kept in mind that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be of two opinions. We may also usefully refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: “An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.” (emphasis supplied) 24. It is also well-settled that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning and the same is clearly distinct from erroneous decision as has been held in Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. reported in 1997(8) SCC 715 . In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record”. It was held, an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said t 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”. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face f the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. [See. Paragraphs 19 and 20 in Barun Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal reported in 2012(2) CHN 617 ]. 25. The power of review, it is trite to say, should not be confused with appellate power. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. [See. Paragraphs 19 and 20 in Barun Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal reported in 2012(2) CHN 617 ]. 25. The power of review, it is trite to say, should not be confused with appellate power. An Appellate Court is competent to correct errors committed by the Court subordinate thereto. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.” (emphasis supplied) 26. In this regard we can profitably relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 to understand what can be said to be mistake or error apparent on the face of record. 27. In State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held :- “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. 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.” 23. xxxxxx 24. xxxxxx 25. In Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter, 1949 FCR 36 a five Judge Bench of the Federal Court while considering the question whether the Calcutta High Court was justified in not granting relief to non-appealing party, whose position was similar to that of the successful appellant, held: (FCR p.48) “That a decision is erroneous in law is certainly no ground for ordering review. If the court has decided a point and decided it erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on the face of the record or even analogous to it. When, however, the court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way, that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.” (emphasis supplied) 28. In Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRS vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCR 865 power of a review court is stated in following words: “7. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement”. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 , this Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. 8. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 , this Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. 8. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T.Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 . It is held that such an error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 , it is observed as under: “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 clearcut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated.” 8.1 In the case of Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi, (Supra) in paragraph 7 to 9 it is observed and 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., AIR 1964 SC 1372 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. 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.” 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (supra) 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 selfevident 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”. (emphasis supplied) 29. In a fairly recent decision in S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 185 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure in paragraphs 15 to 17. On a review of its earlier decisions it was held: 15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? On a review of its earlier decisions it was held: 15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that 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. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 16. It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 17. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 16. It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 17. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra), it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.” (emphasis supplied) 30. The instant application is a clear attempt to reopen the issue and rehearing of the appeal on merits. The application is thoroughly misconceived. 31. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the application for review as filed by the appellant and we dismiss the same with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the Secretary, WBSLSA which may be earmarked for legal awareness programme within two weeks from date. 32. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.