ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the respondent No.5 in the writ petition and is seeking to review the judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.17052 of 2007 vide order dated 13.09.2024. The present review petition is filed canvassing before this Court that this Court has not considered the submission that no funds were allocated to the 5 th respondent by the state. 2. It is also submitted that the 4 th respondent could not place on record the letter of undertaking dated 02/03.04.2008, which was submitted by the writ petitioner foregoing his claim for salary for the period 2002 to 2008. The said letter was not placed before this Court by the 4 th respondent along with the counter which was submitted to this Court on 04.12.2007. A copy of the said undertaking is filed along with the present review petition. 3. This Court considered the material available on record and after perusing the pleadings directed the respondents 4 to 6 to disburse the service benefits in accordance with the directions of the 2 nd respondent dated 14.06.2006. 4. This Court cannot look into any additional material submitted by any of the party after passing an order on merit. The petitioner has attempted to rely on the alleged undertaking submitted by the writ petitioner on 02/03.04.2008. The said undertaking is not on record till filing of the review petition. The same cannot be looked into by this court in a review petition. 5. This Court passed an order on merits taking into consideration all the material which is available on record and also gave a finding on merits. 6. The petitioner could not point out any apparent error on the face of the order which is either contrary to the pleadings or record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , [ (1995) 1 SCC 170 ] , while considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows: "The 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 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the 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 two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226." 8. In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi , 1997 (8) SCC 715 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "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 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. 9. To summarize on the power of review the Court has to consider the following points before reviewing the judgment : a. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. b. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. c. 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. d. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." e. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." f. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. g. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. h. Even the change in law or subsequent decisions or a judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 10. No grounds are raised which warrant the exercise of inherent powers of this Court for reviewing the judgment. Accordingly, the present review petition is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.