ORDER Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioners in W.P(C)No.9148 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] was sitting along with Amit Rawal, J., by which the writ petition was dismissed. Since Amit Rawal, J., demitted office, this review petition is listed before this Bench, as per the roster. 2. The petitioners filed this review petition with a delay of 252 days. By the order dated 10.03.2026, we condoned the said delay and listed the review petition for consideration. 3. Heard Sri.T.C. Krishna, the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ratheesh. B, the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent was discharged from service at his own request. The Release Medical Board assessed his disability at 20% for three years, since the respondent was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus. The entitlement for disability element of pension by the respondent is only if the illness was attributable to military service. Since the Release Medical Board found that the illness of the respondent was not attributable to military service, the finding in the impugned judgment of this Court, in tune with the finding of the Tribunal, is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Senior Panel Counsel vehemently submitted that the burden is upon the respondent to prove that the illness suffered by him is attributable to military service, especially when the opinion of the Release Medical Board is otherwise. The learned Senior Panel Counsel submitted that the percentage of disability reckoned as 50% by this Court is also an error, since the aforesaid rounding was implemented by virtue of Annexure A2 notification dated 23.01.2018 with effect from 01.01.2016, whereas the respondent was discharged in the year 2000. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the position pertaining to disability attributable to service conditions is settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 316] and also the case of rounding off of the percentage of disability by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India [ (2014) 14 SCC 364 ] . This Court passed the judgment in the writ petition by relying on the above judgments of the Apex Court, and the attempt of the petitioners is to reagitate the issue by using the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. 6. 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. 7. 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.” 8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 11. 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) 12. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the 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. 13. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [2013 (8) SCC 320] 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 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.” 14. In Sasi (Dead) 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. 15. 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”. 16. Again, in Govt. 16. 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.” 17. 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. 18. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider the review petition filed by the petitioners herein. In the judgment dated 23.05.2025, the Division Bench, wherein one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] is a party, considered the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the arguments addressed at the Bar in detail and passed the judgment dated 23.05.2025. Though the petitioners now raised certain contentions regarding entitlement of the respondent for disability element of pension in view of the opinion of the Release Medical Board and also against the rounding off of the disability to 50%, since it was assessed as 20% by the Release Medical Board, from the judgment, it can be seen that this Court considered those aspects also in the judgment in detail, inter alia, by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh [ (2013) 7 SCC 316 ] and Sukhvinder Singh [(2014) 14 SCC 364] and concurred with the findings of the Tribunal. 19. 19. Having considered the grounds for review stated in the present review petition and the submissions made at the Bar, we find absolutely no ground to hold that the judgment dated 23.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.9148 of 2025 is suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record as contended by the petitioners. The attempt of the petitioners is only to reagitate the issue already found against them by using the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.