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