Order : Muralee Krishna S., J. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.322 of 2017 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/wSection 114of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908(‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 10.02.2026 passed by this Court in that original petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider what is the actual grievance of the petitioner and the question of law raised by the petitioner is left unanswered even though Annexure A2 order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Senior Administrative Officer and Annexure A3 order dated 31.12.2016, passed by the Government, are produced and challenged in the original application. The said omission on the part of the Tribunal to consider the grievance of the petitioner is a mistake on the part of the Tribunal which caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Even though the Tribunal did not consider the challenge against Annexures A2 and A3 in the original application, this Court may consider the grievance of the petitioner, which was in existence at the time of disposal of the original petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of this Court, and the petitioner cannot reagitate the issue decided against him by using review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. 5. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned. 6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned. 6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “ 1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” 8. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner; “(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason 9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1980) 2 SCC 167 ] the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. 10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ] 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 . In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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”. (Underline supplied) 11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 12. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [CDJ 2013 SC 701], the Apex Court laid down the following principles as far as a review petition is concerned. “16. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 12. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [CDJ 2013 SC 701], the Apex Court laid down the following principles as far as a review petition is concerned. “16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, [ AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 , to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 13. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 13. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [ AIR 2017 SC 1432 ], the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. 14. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [ (2020) 2 SCC 677 ] , the Apex Court by referring to Parsion Devi [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ], held thus: “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided”. 15. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus: “Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC , the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason.” 16. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212] , after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on the merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 17. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider the review petition filed by the petitioner herein. By the judgment dated 10.02.2026, this Court dismissed the original petition filed by the review petitioner, by relying on the judgment of this Court in Jayakumar. 17. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider the review petition filed by the petitioner herein. By the judgment dated 10.02.2026, this Court dismissed the original petition filed by the review petitioner, by relying on the judgment of this Court in Jayakumar. G. v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (3) KHC 763 ] . This Court has not dismissed the original petition by giving a reasoning that the petitioner has not challenged Annexures A2 and A3 orders before the Tribunal. The contentions of the petitioner were considered in detail in the judgment dated 10.02.2026, passed by this Court. 18. Having considered the grounds for review stated in the present review petition and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the judgment dated 10.02.2026 in O.P.(KAT)No.322 of 2017 is suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record. The attempt of the petitioner is only to re- agitate the issue already found against him, by using the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. In the result, this review petition stands dismissed.