The review power is limited in scope and cannot be used as an appellate power. A mistake apparent on record must be obvious and not established through a long process of reasoning.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The above review applications are filed to review the judgment dated 3. 2001 made in A.S.Nos.262 and 264 of 1997, which were filed against the judgment and decree of the Reference Court made in L.A.O.P.Nos.3 and 6 of 1993 dated 19. 1995.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants submitted that this Court has to review the order on the premise that while disposing of the appeals, the review petitioners were not properly represented though the petitioners were represented by counsel that there are errors apparent on the face of the orders in taking into consideration of Ex.A2 a document dated 18. 1986 as a document reflecting the real market value with reference to 4(1) Notification dated 6. 1989. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.4,176/- per cent has been considerably reduced to Rs.1,625/- per cent. The learned counsel has also advanced the argument as to the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Division Bench, which is in a way rearguing the appeals once again in spite of the fact that the judgment under review was rendered on merits of the case taking into consideration of the documents marked and the evidence adduced though the counsel for the appellant was not present.

3. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the materials placed on record.

4. We are of the view that the scope of exercising the review power is very limited. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after 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 and the review petitioners have not been properly represented at that time of arguing the case or the counsel who argued on behalf of the review petitioners has not placed any relevant materials before the Court. 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 or crept in the judgment and decree which is appealed again.

5. The Supreme Court in the decision of PARSION DEVI VS. SUMITRA DEVI reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 has 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”.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of KERALA SEB VS. HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS & HYDROPOWER LIMITED reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651 held at paragraph No.10 as follows:-

."..... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion