The power of review may be exercised on specific grounds such as the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous ground, but not on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. This civil review application has been preferred for review of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 7.7.2014, whereby the Letters Patent Appeal No. 436 of 2013, preferred by these applicants, was dismissed.

Reasons:

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:-

(i) These applicants want to argue again on the very same point which has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court.

(ii) It is the wrong belief of these applicants that the Hon'ble Division Bench has not rightly decided the issue raised by these applicants. This is not permissible. This Civil Review Application is not an appeal in disguise.

(iii) The point of territorial jurisdiction has been raised again by the counsel for the applicants. This point has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition preferred by. these applicants being WP(S) No.3027 of 2013 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.10.2013, against which, L.P.A. No. 436 of 2013 was preferred by these applicants and the said letters patent appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2014 and the order passed by the learned. Single Judge was upheld.

(iv) The point of territorial jurisdiction has already been discussed in paragraph-7 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, and hence, this issue cannot be raised in this Civil Review Application. The lawyer is also same and the parties are also same. Nothing new has been argued out.

3. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 in paragraph 3, which reads as under:

"3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1943-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned. by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court. "

(Emphasis supplied)

4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 in paragraphs 8, 9 and 15, which read as under :

"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar juris