1 (U HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.98 of 2011 PETmONER: RESPONDENT: -Versus- Arun KumarGupta Chandi Mandir Trust Samiti Chandi Chowk Durg (CG) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORDER IN CHAMBER (^0_/10/2011 ) ISy this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment dated 5-7-2011 delivered in S.A. No.167/2011 whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 2. The scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The .petitioner prays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistakeor error apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another, [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. 3. Perused the grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition for review. 4. The judgment under review has been delivered after hearing the parties at Y length and perusal of the entire record of the trial Court, therefore, in view --^s^" (3€. of the above settled position of law, no ground for review is available to the petitioner against the impugned order. 5. The petition is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Bar/e Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge