ORDER : 1. The appellant in W.A.No.407 of 2024 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal, claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that judgment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant, the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7523 of 2023 the proceedings issued by the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board ordering the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,34,235/- with 10% annual interest being the arrears of employers’ contribution in respect of respondents 3 to 5 who were former employees of the Bank was found as in order and thereby dismissed the writ petition. Challenging that judgment, the petitioner filed W.A. No.407 of 2024. Concurring with the findings of the learned Single Judge, this Court dismissed the writ appeal. However, this Court had failed to note that the 2 nd respondent has already transferred the employers’ contribution with accrued interest to the 1 st respondent Board on 09.08.2024. The delay in transferring that amount was on the part of the 2 nd respondent and not on the part of the petitioner Bank. The 2 nd respondent is yet to transfer the contributions relating to the remaining employees of the Bank. Therefore, casting the liability to pay interest on the petitioner, for the delay committed by the 2 nd respondent, is without proper appreciation of the materials on record. In the judgment, reliance was placed on the remittance of a sum of Rs.1,08,97,662/- made by the erstwhile Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank towards interest on the pension fund arrears of 36 employees as calculated by the 1 st respondent in Ext.R1(a) order dated 26.11.2022. The said reliance placed in the judgment is also an error apparent on the face of the record. The decision pertaining to Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank was taken pursuant to the meeting held on 04.08.2022 between the representatives of the Co-operative Department and Pension Board. The said reliance placed in the judgment is also an error apparent on the face of the record. The decision pertaining to Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank was taken pursuant to the meeting held on 04.08.2022 between the representatives of the Co-operative Department and Pension Board. Moreover, in the case Thiruvananthapuram District Co- operative Bank, there was delay on the part of the Bank in remitting the amount received from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to the Pension Board. But in the instant case, there is no such delay on the part of the petitioner bank. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that as per Clause 29 of the pension scheme the petitioner Bank was required to transfer the employers’ contribution along with interest accrued from employees provident fund to the pension fund within 1½ years from 30.06.2009, failing which the Bank was liable to pay the defaulted amount with interest at 24% which was later reduced to 10% compound interest. The Petitioner Bank had not taken any steps to get the amount transferred from the 2 nd respondent Employees Provident Fund Organisation to the 1 st respondent Board within time. If the delay is on the part of the 2 nd respondent, the Bank ought to have proceeded against the 2 nd respondent. Due to the default by the petitioner Bank, respondents 3 to 5 were compelled to remit the employers’ contribution with interest from their personal funds to avoid delay in pension disbursal. There is no error in the judgment, which was one rendered taking note of these facts. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 maintained their stand that was taken in the writ appeal. 6. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned. 7. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned. 7. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. 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.” 8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “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. 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.” 9. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner. (i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 10. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi , (1980) 2 SCC 167 the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. 11. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi , (1997) 8 SCC 715 held thus: “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.” (Underline supplied) 12. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria , (2013) 15 SCC 534 the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 13. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 13. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, AIR 2017 SC 1432 the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. 14. In Shanthi Conductors ( P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others, (2020) 2 SCC 677 the Apex Court by referring to Parsion Devi [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ] held thus: “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 15. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. 2024 SCC Online SC 1090 the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus: “Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason.” 16. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University , 2025 KHC OnLine 212 in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S., J], after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 17. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 17. While going through the judgment in W.A.No.407 of2024 we notice that the contention of the petitioner bank that it had filed an application before the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner to transfer the employers’ contribution to the fund, was taken note of by this Court and rejected that claim for the reason that no evidence was produced from the side of the Bank to show that the employers’ contribution was transferred to the fund which was credited to the Employees Provident Fund by it. Now, from the contentions in the review petition and also from the counter affidavit dated 05.08.2025 filed by the respondents 3 to 5 to the review petition, it is gatherable that the 2 nd respondent transferred the amount to the 1 st respondent on 09.08.2024. There is an inordinate delay in transferring the amount. However, as righty contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner Bank could have taken legal steps against the 2 nd respondent if the delay was really from the part of the 2 nd respondent, and if it was despite the earnest efforts of the petitioner Bank. The respondents 3 to 5, as well as the 1 st respondent, are sticking on the stand that the entire amount was paid by the respondents 3 to 5 from their pockets, to avoid delay in the disbursal of pensionary benefits. If the shortfall is from the part of the 2 nd respondent, then definitely the petitioner Bank is entitled to proceed against the 2 nd respondent in accordance with law. 18. On appreciation of materials on record, and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to say that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with section 114 of the CPC to review the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.