Office action with Date of Order with Signature date and datedSignature of Parties when the Order necessary of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." Ld. Advocate for the Auction Purchaser has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Government of NCT of Delhi and another Vs K. L. Rathi Steels Limited and others wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at paragraph 86.1., 86.2. 89. has observed that: “86.1 Hari Sankar Pal V. Anath Nath Mitter, a five-judge Bench decision of the Federal Court was alluded to, wherein it was observed that if a decision is erroneous in law, the same is certainly no ground for ordering review. Moreover, if the case had been decided erroneously, the error could not be construed as being one apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule CPC.” “86.2 Reliance was also placed on Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi and it was observed that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 89. In the aforesaid case Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. has also been adverted to wherein this Court delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not be maintainable as under : (Kamlesh Verma case, SCC pp. 333-34, para 20) “20 ................ 20.2 ................... (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
