The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.

1. On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, this condonation of delay application is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition against judgment dated 31st of October, 2014 passed in OWP No. 403/2012 is condoned. Registry to diarize the review petition which is taken on board.

2. By this review petition, the petitioners / respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in OWP No. 403/2012 are seeking review of final judgment of this Court dated 31st of October, 2014, passed in OWP No. 403/2012, operative portion whereof reads as under:
'Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and by writ of Mandamus respondents commanded to pay Rs. 14.426 lacs to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9 percent from 1st April 2012, till amount is actually paid to the petitioner. Should respondents fail to pay aforementioned amount along with interest within three months from the date of this Judgment, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum with effect from 1st April 2012 till it is paid to the petitioner.'

3. Mr Chashoo, the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the review petitioners, submits that the judgment under review is in conflict with the basic record of the case placed before the Writ Court in the form of Measurement Book and final bill submitted by the Contractor / respondent herein / writ petitioner. It is further submitted that the Writ Court, while passing the judgment under review, did not take into the consideration the fact that the respondent herein / writ petitioner was estopped from claiming any amount than what he had submitted in his 5th and final bill which was duly paid to him while closing the contract. It is pleaded that the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, R&B, Division concerned certifying that the Contractor has completed the work satisfactorily is against the basic record in the form of Measurement Books certified by the Executive Engineer and, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the same. It is also contended that the reliance placed by the Writ Court on the communication of the Executive Engineer concerned bearing No. N - 1 / EEP / 5071-72 dated 12th of November, 2011 is also misplaced, as physical completion does not certify amount of work done, especially in the instant case where two lairs were to be laid by the Contractor and, as per the petitioners themselves, one lair of Grade - II was laid by the Contractor for full length of 9 Kms as per allotment, however, Grade - III was laid for only half of the allotted length.

4. Mr Qurashi, the learned senior counsel, representing the writ petitioner / respondent herein, while supporting the judgment under review, submits that through the medium of the instant review petition, the petitioner is, in fact, seeking re - hearing of the matter which is unwarranted in a review petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

6. What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that in the instant review petition, the review petitioners have touched the merits of the case, which, in a review petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the review petition have already been decided and findings returned thereon by the Court and, if the review petitioners were aggrieved of the said findings, they ought to have availed the remedy under law for challenging the same in the appropriate Court. In fact, the instant review petition, on grounds enumerated therein, appears to be a disguised appeal. The grounds taken by the revi