JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel Sri J. M. Anil Kumar for the review petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel Sri M.B.Raddi for respondent No.2. 2. This review petition is filed to review the order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.102026/2022, wherein this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein directing the services of respondent No.2 to be regularized and providing of service benefits, arrears in accordance with law in compliance of the award passed in I.D. No. 34/1998 dtd. 23/5/2001. A similar petition was also filed by another employee in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 and accordingly this petition came to be disposed of by this Court on the lines of order passed in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 dtd. 9/8/2021. It is the grievance of the revision petitioners that who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition, while passing the orders in the writ petition, this Court had not issued notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are arrayed as parties and they were unable to bring the certain facts to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of Review Petition No.100069/2021 and W.A.No.951/2007 and so also that the review petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before this Court since the writ petition was disposed of following the orders passed in the Writ Petition No.145046/2020, against which, review petition is pending consideration before this Court. 3. It is also stated that the orders passed by this Court in writ petition which is sought to be reviewed would have huge financial ramifications on the state exchequer. 4. Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC reads as under : "1. 3. It is also stated that the orders passed by this Court in writ petition which is sought to be reviewed would have huge financial ramifications on the state exchequer. 4. Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC reads as under : "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 of 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." 5. The short point for consideration in this review petition is on the ground that the review petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition were not heard while the order in the writ petition came to be passed. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners are representing respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4 in the writ petition. The only question is notice was not issued to the review petitioners, the order dtd. 7/6/2022 is reviewed only on the ground that no notice was issued to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are petitioners before this Court in review petition. Further, the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are heard in this petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and respondents, this Court finds that there is no error having been committed by this Court on other aspect with regard to merits of the case in disposing of the writ petition. 8. Before adverting to the same, it is relevant to extract the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Muralisundaram Vs. Jyoti and others reported 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held at paragraph No.15 as follows: "15. 8. Before adverting to the same, it is relevant to extract the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Muralisundaram Vs. Jyoti and others reported 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held at paragraph No.15 as follows: "15. While considering the aforesadi issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 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 Sec. 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 statue 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." 9. (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." 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above, it is apparently clear that in a review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, this Court can interfere only when there is an apparent error on the face of record and a mistake having committed. However on hearing the review petitioners and learned counsel for respondents, this Court does not find any error having been committed except the fact that no notice came to be issued to review petitioners / respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Now, the review petitioners are present before the Court they have taken notice and are heard. However, this Court is not inclined to advert to any of his arguments, as this Court cannot sit in appeal while considering the review petition. As apparently, it is seen that there is no error committed by this Court on the face of it and if there is any error or erroneous orders on the merits of the matter it is always open to the review petitioners to challenge the same by way of an appeal. Under the circumstances, whatever grounds that are been urged by the review petitioners are open to be taken up by them by way of appeal. This Court however is not inclined to review the order passed by this Court as nothing apparent error is shown on the face of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed in WP.No.102026/2022 is reviewed to the limited extent of notice having not been served on the review petitioners i.e., respondents No.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition. (ii) The writ petition is disposed of only with the slight modification of service of notice to respondents No.2, 3 and 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of in the following manner. The order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed in WP.No.102026/2022 by this Court is recalled to the limited extent of notice not being served to the petitioners / respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed off. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of in the following manner. The order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed in WP.No.102026/2022 by this Court is recalled to the limited extent of notice not being served to the petitioners / respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed off. In view of disposal of the review petition, I.As. also deserve to be accordingly disposed of. I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. I.A.No.2/2022 would not survive for consideration as the review petition is disposed of, so also the writ petition.