is grave and palpable. By merely saying that the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench was suffering from a patent error, the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings had overshot its jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The Review Bench had re-appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as the Court of Appeal, and reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench order was found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an Appellate Court. 48. The judgment rendered in Meera Bhanja (supra) has been relied upon in Parsion Devi & others Vs. Sumitri Devi & others 1997 (8) SCC 715 and in Harihar Das Vs. Usha Rani 2006 (3) SCC 125 where it was observed that none of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case, or could perhaps have argued that more forcefully, and / or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favarouable verdict. Where the order in question is appealabe, the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with greatest circumspection. There is a distinction between an erroneous decision and the decision which could be characterised as vitiated by an “error apparent”. Rehearing of a dispute in the garb of the review petition is impermissible. Similarly, under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to reopen the case
