ORDER : VENKATESH NAIK T., J. This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 15.05.2025 in R.F.A. No.869/2024. 2. The issue involved in the present review petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S. No.337 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) praying to declare the petitioners as the absolute owners of the property measuring 01 acre 16 guntas of land forming part of Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. The said lands were described in Schedule-B of the plaint filed in the said suit. The suit Schedule-B property was land measuring 01 acre 16 guntas, out of which, 35 guntas was converted for non-agricultural purposes. Out of 1 acre 16 guntas of land, 1 acre 15 guntas falls in Sy.No.28/2 and only 1 gunta of land falls in Sy.No.28/1. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners, hence the petitioners preferred appeal in R.F.A.No.869 of 2024 before this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. We have heard Sri P.D. Surana, learned senior counsel representing Sri Raju S., learned counsel for the review petitioners and Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Vijay Kumar Desai, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that, this Court had taken note of the Sale Deed dated 31.01.1969 executed by Sri Channagiriyappa in favour of Sri S.R. Yogananda and Smt. Vijayalakshmi vide Ex.P2 and the boundaries mentioned in the said Sale Deed are noted by this Court in para No.35 of the judgment. However, from perusal of the said Sale Deed, it clearly demonstrates that the road namely, Makali Yadalu road, is situated within Sy.No.28. Thus, from the said Sale Deed, it is clear that said road is bifurcating Sy.No.28, later the survey number was re-numbered as Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru village. The portion which falls towards west of Makali Yadalu road is the suit Schedule-B property. Thus, from the said Sale Deed, it is clear that said road is bifurcating Sy.No.28, later the survey number was re-numbered as Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru village. The portion which falls towards west of Makali Yadalu road is the suit Schedule-B property. Thus, suit Schedule-B property is part and parcel of the property purchased by Sri S.R. Yogananda and Smt. Vijayalakshmi under the Sale Deed dated 31.01.1969 as per Ex.P2. In the Sale Deed dated 13.12.1978 executed by Smt. Vijayalakshmi and Sri S.R. Yogananda in favour of Sri. B.C. Chinnappa, 08 acres and 11 guntas of land in Sy. No.28/2 of Nagaruru Village was conveyed under Ex.P3 - Sale Deed. However, a mistake had crept in the said Sale Deed, viz., the western boundary omitted was not mentioned. Thereafter, 08 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy. No.28/2 was sold by Sri B.C. Chinnappa in favour of Smt. Asha Uttam Chandani, (review petitioner No.3) as per Ex.P4 and in Ex.P4, the western boundary has been shown as 'Makali Yadalu road'. This mistake is palpable from the fact that western boundary is correctly mentioned as per Ex.P2, however, the same was not mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. However, this Court in para No.37 of its judgment has observed as follows:- "37.…………We have perused the boundaries depicted in Exs.P2 to P4 - Sale Deeds. It is clear that towards western side of 'B' schedule property, there is Sy. No.27, which is the property of defendant and thereafter, there is boundary of Kodipalya Village." 5. In view of the said observation, learned counsel contended that plaint-B Schedule property is part and parcel of Sy. Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observation, it ought to have held that the petitioners are the owners of the plaint 'B' Schedule property and therefore, the appeal ought to have been allowed by this Court. 6. Further, the petitioners had produced survey sketch before the trial Court that was issued by the Tahsildar vide Ex.P22 in respect of Sy. Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village and the respondent herein had challenged the correctness of the said survey sketch in W.P.No.9480 of 2019 before this Court and later, he withdrew it, which shows Ex.P22-Sketch is accepted by the respondent. This Court in para No.42 of its judgment had observed as under: "42. Further Ex.P22 which is the Sy. Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village and the respondent herein had challenged the correctness of the said survey sketch in W.P.No.9480 of 2019 before this Court and later, he withdrew it, which shows Ex.P22-Sketch is accepted by the respondent. This Court in para No.42 of its judgment had observed as under: "42. Further Ex.P22 which is the Sy. sketch goes to show property bearing Sy.No.28/1 in yellow colour and below the same Sy.No.28/2 is shown in blue colour and towards West, there is a boundary of Kodipalya village and below Kodipalya village, there is property bearing Sy.No.27. In between Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 and boundary of Kodipalya village and Sy.No.27…….." 7. Hence, the learned senior counsel contended that, after noting the aforesaid facts, this Court recorded findings that, between Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 and the boundary of Kodipalya Village at Sy.No.27, there is thin dotted line, which bifurcates both properties and the same is nothing but the road and after noting the said fact, this Court observed that Survey Sketch does not indicate about any encroachment by the owner of Sy.No.27. This Court also recorded that there is a road which separates Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 from Kodipalya Village and hence, if at all the defendant/respondent has to encroach any portion of Sy.Nos.28/1 or 28/2, then he has to encroach the road and thereafter, the property of the plaintiffs/petitioners. This finding recorded by this Court is erroneous in nature, as could be seen from Ex.P22-survey sketch, the dotted line noted by this Court is running in Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 only and thus, the dotted line, in fact, bifurcates Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2. Thus, the smaller portion falling towards the western side of the road is also part of Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village. Therefore, the area forming part of the said survey numbers located towards western side of Makali Yadalu road is the plaint-B Schedule property. Plaint-B Schedule property does not fall in Sy.No.27. Therefore, Sy.No.27 is located towards west of plaint-B Schedule property and not on the western side of Makali Yadalu road. This fact has not been properly looked into while appreciating the contents of Exs.P2-P4. 8. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that the respondent has produced the survey Sketch of Sy.Nos.28/1, 28/2, 27/4 and 27/3, which is marked as Ex.D25. The respondent has shown his property bearing Sy.No.27/1, which is bounded towards west of the plaint-B Schedule property. This fact has not been properly looked into while appreciating the contents of Exs.P2-P4. 8. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that the respondent has produced the survey Sketch of Sy.Nos.28/1, 28/2, 27/4 and 27/3, which is marked as Ex.D25. The respondent has shown his property bearing Sy.No.27/1, which is bounded towards west of the plaint-B Schedule property. The western boundary line of Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 was drawn in Ex.D25, wherein it is shown as, Makali Yadalu road passes through Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 and this is clear from the western boundary of Sy.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 shown in Ex.D25. This aspect has not been properly considered by this Court and thus, committed an error in noting that Ex.P22-the official survey sketch establishes that on western side of the property, there exists Makali Yadalu road. The said finding is not sustainable. 9. Learned senior counsel further contended that, the evidence of PW2 clearly demonstrates that the entry made in Ex.P4 is wrong. The fact, that the boundaries are correctly mentioned in Ex.P2-Sale Deed dated 31.01.1969, clearly demonstrates that the western boundary has been omitted in Ex.P3 and the same was wrongly recorded in Ex.P4. Therefore, it is a case of incorrect mentioning of boundaries in the Sale Deeds-Exs.P3 and P4, which has not been taken note of. Further, the boundaries, mentioned in Conversion Order, is also a mistake committed for the reason that the boundaries were furnished as appearing in Ex.P4 at the time of obtaining the Conversion Order. It is contended that, when the suit for declaration is filed, such a prayer includes the rectification of document i.e., the western boundary mentioned in the Sale Deeds. Hence, the learned senior counsel prayed to allow the review petition. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following citations: 1. Sheodhyan Singh and others v. Sanichara Kuer and other reported in AIR 1956 PATNA 349. 2. Hussonally Sullemanji v. Tribhowandas Mangaldas Nathubhai and others reported in AIR 1921 PRIVY COUNCIL 40. 3. Mohendra Nath Banerjee v. Roy Satish Chandra Choudhury Bahadur and another reported in AIR 1934 CALCUTTA 569. 4. Baleshwar Prasad Choudhary v. Lal Bahadur Prasad Choudhary and Other reported in AIR 1972 PATNA 87. 5. Basudev Das and another v. Somenath Das reported in AIR 1964 ORISSA 63. 6. 3. Mohendra Nath Banerjee v. Roy Satish Chandra Choudhury Bahadur and another reported in AIR 1934 CALCUTTA 569. 4. Baleshwar Prasad Choudhary v. Lal Bahadur Prasad Choudhary and Other reported in AIR 1972 PATNA 87. 5. Basudev Das and another v. Somenath Das reported in AIR 1964 ORISSA 63. 6. Brij Lal and Others v. Kartar Kaur(deceased by Lrs.) and others reported in AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARIYANA 88 10. The petitioners have also filed I.A. No.1/2025 under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking permission to produce the additional documents. 11. The petitioners have also filed I.A. No.2/2025 under Order VI, Rule 17, Order XLI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of CPC, to permit the petitioners to add additional grounds after paragraph No.12 of the review petition. 12. Per contra, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate on record for respondent, vehemently contended that this Court while appreciating the facts, evidence and law has analysed the facts, pleadings of the parties, exhibited documents relied upon by both the parties, evidence of the parties and their admissions in evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to prove their case and accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. That cannot be interfered by this Court in this Review Petition. 13. Learned Senior counsel further contended that, the petitioners are now relying upon additional evidence. In fact, in the review petition, additional evidence cannot be looked into by the Court. Therefore, filing of an application for production of additional documents, after filing of Review Petition is not permissible. Under such circumstances, the petitioners ought not to have filed the Review Petition. Further, this Court has recorded a clear finding as to the contentions of the petitioners and has analysed the pleadings and evidence of the parties both oral and documentary. This Court has analysed the contents of Exs.P2, P3 and P4 in proper perspective. Under such circumstances, the petitioners ought not to have filed the Review Petition. Further, this Court has recorded a clear finding as to the contentions of the petitioners and has analysed the pleadings and evidence of the parties both oral and documentary. This Court has analysed the contents of Exs.P2, P3 and P4 in proper perspective. In fact, the petitioners had obtained the Conversion Order wherein, correct boundaries were mentioned and this Court discussed the admissions made by PW1 and PW2 in detail and PW2 in his evidence has admitted the boundaries of land in question and he was a consenting witness to both Ex.P4-Sale Deed dated 12.04.1990 and Ex.D3-Eastern boundary of Sale Deed dated 14.05.1999. In the Conversion Order dated 21.03.1995 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, there is schedule and towards west, it is shown as PWD road. Thus, this Court has analysed the fact, evidence, exhibited documents and has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and hence, there is no grounds for review. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the review petition. 14. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length, and perused the material available on record. 15. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 1 of CPC and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.337 of 2017 dated 12-01-2024. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court contending that the finding of this Court with regard to boundaries mentioned in Exs.P2, P3 and P4 are erroneous. 16. The first contention of the petitioners is that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, this Court has not analysed the correctness of boundaries of Exs.P2, P3, P4 and sketch, thus prayed to review the judgment and decree. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC: "1. 16. The first contention of the petitioners is that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, this Court has not analysed the correctness of boundaries of Exs.P2, P3, P4 and sketch, thus prayed to review the judgment and decree. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC: "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." 17. In the case of PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA reported in AIR 2019 SC (Supp) 122 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. 18. Admittedly, re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Review is not appeal in disguise. 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. It is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. 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. It is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering the catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principles of Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC in the case of S . Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan and Others reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515 , which reads 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." Further, 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. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. and Another v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others , reported in AIR Online 2016 SC 670, has observed that the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited. Under the guise of review, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue questions which have already been addressed and decided. Under the guise of review, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue questions which have already been addressed and decided. Thus, 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 XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 20. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we have perused the findings given by this Court in RFA No.869/2024, wherein this Court has analysed the schedule of Exs.P2, P3, P4, Exs-D2, D3 and Ex-D25 and the admissions given by PW1 and PW2 in their cross examination. This Court has given a clear finding that towards western side of plaintiffs'/petitioners property, there is Makali Yadalu road and towards eastern side of defendant's/respondent's property, there is Makali Yadalu road and thus, the plaintiffs' property and defendant's property are separated by Makali Yadalu road, now PWD road. This Court also gave a finding that both plaintiffs and defendant purchased their respective properties from a common vendor by name B.C. Chinnappa, and the son of common vendor by name Suman Chandra has stated that the schedule shown in Ex-D3 (sale deed of defendant) and Ex-P4 (sale deed of plaintiffs') are correct and possession was delivered in their favour, in terms of Ex-D3 and Ex-P4 respectively. 21. Once the contents of Exs.P2 to P4 and Exs.D2 and D3 fell for consideration before this Court while deciding the main appeal, the same cannot be considered by this Court while deciding the review petition. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue questions which have already been addressed and decided. 22. In the instant case, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1/2025 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Order XL1 Rule r/w Section 151 CPC and sought permission to produce additional documents such as, certified copy of the Memorandum of Appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in RA(BN) No.113/2024 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru; Certified copy of the order-sheets in RA(BN) No.113/2024; Certified copy of the order dated 14.5.2024 passed in RA(BN) No.113/2024; True copy of the RTC extracts (2 Nos.) dated 14-11 2025 of Sy. No.28/1 and 28/2 of Nagaruru Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 23. The petitioners contended that on 14.11.2025, they verified website maintained by the Revenue Department relating to RTC and found that the name of respondent is entered in respect of 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.28/1 of Nagaruru village and in respect of Sy.No.28/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas, the name of respondent is mentioned in the RTCs and said entries were made on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. (BN) No.113/2024. Hence, the name of respondent found place in respect of 'B' Schedule property. Thus, the respondent cannot take advantage of the incorrect mentioning of the boundaries in the Sale Deeds. Hence, the petitioners sought to produce the aforesaid additional documents. 24. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.2/2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the petition, by inserting additional grounds at para 12 and schedule property. 25. In the light of the aforesaid IAs, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 114 of CPC empowers a Court to review its order, if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provisions of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the Court, except those which are expressly provided in Section 114 of CPC, in terms thereof, Court is empowered to make such order as it feels fit. 26. Admittedly, Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or, when there exists an error apparent of the record, but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reasons. 27. We have perused the aforesaid documents and proposed amendments in the review petition. The petitioners cannot rely on those documents, as those documents pertain to the respondent herein, who has filed the memorandum of appeal under Section 136(2) of KLR Act, 1964, for change of mutation and transfer of khata in respect of the property in question and the revenue authorities, based on judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, passed the aforesaid order. The respondent filed appeal on 21.3.2024 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk. The respondent filed appeal on 21.3.2024 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division, by its order dated 14.5.2024, directed the Tahsildar to effect mutation and transfer khata in the name of the respondent, on the basis of decree dated 12.1.2024 passed in O.S. No.337/2017. Whereas, the petitioners had filed RFA No.869/2024 before this Court on 07.11.2024 and this Court disposed of the appeal on 15.05.2025. 28. Now, the petitioners are relying upon the aforesaid additional documents in the review petition and also sought amendment to the review petition, which is not permissible, for the simple reason that, such order in revenue proceedings are subject to the orders under review. In the review petition, amendment cannot be permitted introducing new facts, as the amendment sought for would not resolve the real question and controversy between the parties. Further, if amendment is permitted, it will change the character and nature of the case. If amendment is not permitted, no injustice would be caused to the petitioners. 29. A review of judgment is not maintainable, if it is merely an attempt to re-argue the case, constitutes an appeal in disguise, or seeks to correct an error that is not obvious on the face of the record. So also, a review is a limited remedy intended to correct grave and palpable errors or prevent a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the petitioners have not made out any grounds that there are grave and palpable errors in the judgment. Therefore, there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition, I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 are hereby dismissed .