Civil procedure Code, 1908 – S.114 r/w Or XLVII – Review Application – Maintainability of – Held: s.114 r/w Or XLVII makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason – The error must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out – The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court – Under the review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter – There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record – An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction – In the present case, nothing have prevented the respondents from filing the certified copies of the revenue records even earlier, but they elected to file only photocopies of the very same surrender proceedings – At no stage a plea was taken by the respondents with regard to the discovery of new documents which could have been produced by them after due diligence – Several opportunities were available to the respondents to file authenticated copies of the revenue records, firstly, when respondents challenged ex-parte order of Appellate authority, secondly, when Appellate authority reconsidered the appeals, thirdly, when respondent preferred a second set of revision petition, fourthly, when respondent filed two review petitions, and lastly, when respondent preferred Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court – Moreover, no averments were made by the respondents in the second set of review to the effect that they could not trace the documents in question earlier – Therefore, non-production of the relevant documents on the part of the respondents at the appropriate stage cannot be a ground for seeking review of the judgment when five opportunities were available to them for production of the said documents – Even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible when the respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of the Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction – Thus, Second set of review petition ought to be rejected by High Court.