ORDER : Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioner Temple Advisory Committee of Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu - Sree Bhagavathy Temple, which was arrayed as the 7 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.12549 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ in short), seeking review of the common judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court in that writ petition along with DBP No.27 of 2025. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-1 st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the party respondents, and the learned Senior Government pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the grievance raised in Ext.P5 complaint was mainly against the employees of the Temple and not against the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the direction to dissolve the Temple Advisory Committee. The Committee had sought extension of time and was granted the same for completing the reinstallation of two flag masts, which was fixed to be held on 20.08.2025. A very same complaint as that of Ext.P5 complaint was submitted before the 7 th respondent, Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, on 01.02.2025, which is produced as Annexure A4 along with the review petition, wherein the 7 th respondent had already conducted a detailed enquiry and closed the same by Annexure A5 report dated 08.04.2025. The petitioner was not privy to Annexures A4 and A5 during the pendency of the writ petition. The directions of this Court have deprived the petitioner Committee and its members of performing the prior duties and obligations, leaving a blemish on themselves. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that there are allegations against the petitioner Committee also, which are clearly narrated in the writ petition. It was noting the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has passed the judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee was dissolved and an intimation was issued to them. 6. The learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that this court passed the judgment in the writ petition on 01.08.2025. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee was dissolved and an intimation was issued to them. 6. The learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that this court passed the judgment in the writ petition on 01.08.2025. Even though there was a direction to dissolve the Temple Advisory Committee within a period of one week, the decision was not taken within time by the Board, with a view to facilitate the petitioner to proceed with the installation of flagmasts, and from the date of Annexure A3 notice dated 17.08.2025, the said fact is evident. 7. 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 and that of 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. 8. 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.” 9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. 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) 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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”. 16. Again in Govt. 16. 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.” 17. 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. 18. The petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court in the writ petition, mainly contending that the allegations in Ext.P5 complaint are against the officials of the temple and not against the members of the Temple Advisory Committee. The term of the Committee was extended to complete the installation of two flag masts. The petitioner further contends that Annexure A4 complaint dated 01.02.2025 with the same allegations as that of Ext.P5 complaint had been submitted before 7 th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer and the 7 th respondent had already conducted a detailed enquiry on that complaint and closed the complaint by Annexure A5 report dated 08.04.2025. The review petitioner was not privy to Annexures A4 and A5 during the pendency of the writ petition. The 5 th respondent had also conducted an enquiry on the allegations raised in Ext.P5 complaint and submitted Annexure A7 report dated 23.05.2025, negating the allegations raised in it. This vital information and records were not produced before this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. 19. The 5 th respondent had also conducted an enquiry on the allegations raised in Ext.P5 complaint and submitted Annexure A7 report dated 23.05.2025, negating the allegations raised in it. This vital information and records were not produced before this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. 19. From the judgment passed in the writ petition, it is clear that this Court considered all the contentions of the parties to the writ petition as well as in DBP No.27 of 2025, which is also a matter jointly decided along with the writ petition, wherein several allegations were raised similar to that of the allegations raised in the writ petition. There are pleadings against the Temple Advisory Committee in the writ petition as well as in the DBP. Considering all those contentions, this Court directed the Vigilance Wing of the Devaswom Board to complete the inquiry initiated against the Temple Advisory Committee. On completion of the inquiry and submission of the report before the Devaswom Commissioner, he was directed to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. In view of those directions, the administration of the temple is directed to be done by the Devaswom Board. While going through the review petition, we notice that Annexures A4 to A8 documents now relied by the petitioner to contend that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment was not placed before this Court at the time of consideration of the writ petition and the DBP. Hence there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. While going through the contentions raised by the review petitioner at present by producing these additional documents, we find that the attempt of the review petitioner is to use the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under law. 20. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to review the judgment in the writ petition. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed. 20. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to review the judgment in the writ petition. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that while taking a decision on completing the inquiry initiated against the Temple Advisory Committee of Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu-Sree Bhagavathy Temple, the vigilance wing of Travancore Devaswom Board and subsequently the Devaswom Commissioner, shall also take into consideration Annexures A4, A5 and A7 documents now produced by the petitioner along with the review petition.