The Court can only exercise its power to review when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

JUDGMENT :

1. The order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the court of Principal District Judge, Ramban (for short the "Executing Court") directing the petitioner-bank to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,30,617/- was impugned by the petitioner-bank through the medium of revision petition, wherein besides other grounds it was also urged that the learned Executing Court has not rightly calculated the interest payable on FDR of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. The Revision petition preferred by the petitioner-bank was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2015 in which the following findings were returned:

"11. In terms of the impugned order dated 12.09.2012, the executing Court has determined the amount payable by the respondent-borrower to the Bank. It has found that the amount of Rs. 12,60,314/-was payable by the respondent-borrower to the Bank, whereas the Bank had to pay to the respondent-borrower an amount of Rs. 35,19,606/-. This calculation has been made on the basis of amount found payable to the Bank under the decree and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- pledged as FDR by the respondent-borrower together with the component of interest admissible thereon as per the approved rates of the Bank. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 12, 60,314/- payable by the respondent-borrower to the Bank, the Bank had to adjust liability of Rs. 22,59,292/- towards the respondent-borrower which, after deducting an amount of Rs. 7,28,675/-paid in terms of order dated 31.01.2008 stood at Rs. 15,30,617/-. The calculation made by the Executing Court in compliance to the order dated 04.11.2011 passed in C. Rev. 51/2008 not having been shown to be erroneous, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

3. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner-bank is seeking review of order/judgment dated 09.02.2015 on the ground that the Court while passing the order, has not appreciated the fact that the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Executing Court was not in consonance and in tune with the terms of decree dated 25.05.1998 and further that the Court ignored the report of the Commission submitted before the Executing Court.

4. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank vehemently argued that while passing the order dated 09.02.2015 the Court has not taken into consideration the report of the Commission submitted before the executing court, wherein the interest payable by the bank on the FDR was rightly calculated.

5. Per contra, Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent argued that review petition is not maintainable, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. He further submitted that the Executing Court in its order dated 12.09.2012 has categorically returned a finding that in the year 1980, the rate of interest after expiry of the period of 91 days, was 16 percent, as admitted by both the sides and in view of this finding, the review petition filed by the petitioner is mis-conceived.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court vide its order dated 09.02.2015 has returned a finding that the Executing Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion, that an amount of Rs. 15,30,617/- was required to paid to the respondent. This Court had already considered the grounds urged in the present review petition and the scope of the review petition is very limited. It is only when the conditions as prescribed in Order XLVII CPC are fulfilled that the Court can exercise its power to review but not otherwise.

8. Once, the contentions of the petitioner-bank have been taken note of by this Court while passing the order dated 09.02.2015, then the petitioner-bank cannot raise these grounds again in the review petition and in fact the petitioner-bank wants that the matter to be re-heard, which is not permissible under law. The order passed by the court may or may not be erroneous but this court while exercising power of review cannot hear appeal against its own order. In Perry Kansagra v. Smriti M