A review petition cannot be treated as a rehearing; errors must be self-evident and not require detailed reasoning to identify.

O R D E R

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J Heard C.M.Appln.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay of 46 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

2. This review petition is filed by the revision petitioners in CRP(WAKF)No.17/2025, seeking review of the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in it.

3. Heard Adv.Biju.P.N., the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners.

4. The grounds raised in the review petition clearly shows that what the review petitioners attempt, is essentially a re-hearing of the matter. It is a settled law, as held by the Apex Court in the decisions in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and others v. State Tax Officer (1) and others [ AIR 2023 SC 5636 ] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ 2000 (6) SCC 224 ] that a review is not to be an attempted rehearing of the matter in disguise. It is also the law that 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, and the power of review cannot be used to substitute a view or correct an erroneous decision. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting this review petition to be entertained.

Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-