This review petition has been preferred by the defendants in the suit stating that this court while applying Article 55 of the Limitation Act had committed an error apparent on the face of the record, consequently liable to set right the error.

2. Counsel appearing for the review petitioner places reliance on the decision of the apex court in Raja Shatrunjit v. Mohammed Azmat Khan (AIR 1971 SC 1474) and contended that the grounds for review under Order XLVII of the code of civil procedure includes mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. Error apparent on the face of the record must be an error, which must strike on mere looking at the record and would not require long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its powers under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the code of civil procedure. As held by the apex court in Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others (1997(8) SCC 715) if there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record the first can be corrected by the higher forum while the latter can only corrected; by exercise of the review jurisdiction.

3. We may in the light of the above-mentioned principle examine whether the decision rendered by this court is an erroneous decision or whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. For disposal of this case, we are not concerned with the facts of the case. The only question raised is whether the suit was hit by the law of limitation. Suit was instituted for realization of money. Plaintiff is a public limited company engaged in construction contracts. First defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. First defendant undertook some work for which agreement was entered into between the parties on 24.3.1987, but the work was terminated on 22.4.1988. Suit was instituted by the Corporation on 7.11.1991 claiming damages of Rs. 1,92,839.66. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. Issue no. 3 was raised by the trial court and the trial court held as follows:

Issue No. 3: The suit is essentially one for the loss sustained by the plaintiff consequent to the rearrangement of the work. The contract with the defendants was terminated as per Ext. A8 dated 22.4.1988. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that his party could assess the loss only on rearrangement of work which was done on 9.11.1988 and the cause of action could be reckoned only from that date in which case the suit is within the time. It was further urged that the amounts claimed and sought to be recovered is in the nature of compensation and that Article applicable is to the instant case Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

The ascertainment of the amount of damages in the suit is quite distinct from the very occasion of ascertainment, which in fact is the real cause of action. The article provides for the breach as the starting point. The amount now sought to be recovered is not compensation in its strict sense. The argument does not stand to merit in view of the specific averments in the plaint regarding the mature of the claim. As per Article 55 of the Limitation Act time begins to run from the date contract is broken. So the present suit, which is filed after three years from the date of accrual of a cause of action, is barred by limitation.

On the above-mentioned findings the suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the same was barred by the law of limitation. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff had approached this court by filling A.S. No. 739 of 1996. Contentions of the parties were more or less the same as in the suit. Counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that while