IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Rev. No. 105 of 2011 Decided on: 18.07.2011 I.D. Sharma …Petitioner. Versus H.P.Housing Board …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: In person. For the respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This is a petition for review of the judgment passed by this Court on 23rd May, 2011. 2. It is well settled law that review of a judgment cannot be made unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the correctness of the judgment, he can approach the higher court, but he can apply for review only if he can show that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- 3. The three pleas raised by the petitioner are that he had tendered some documents regarding his illness and he can produce the same even at this stage. The second ground raised is that it was not necessary to file an application for condonation of delay and the third ground raised is that before the trial Court, he was not given an opportunity to argue on fraud. 4. As far as the first ground is concerned, this Court has discussed all the documents placed on record by the petitioner before the trial court and the petitioner cannot, in review petition, be permitted to now file or place on record any other documents. 5. As far as the second ground is concerned, this Court did not reject the petition on the ground that no application for condonation of delay was filed, but on the ground that neither in the application nor in the evidence, any ground was made out for condonation of delay. 6. Lastly, as far as fraud is concerned, issue has already framed and I need not say anything further in the matter. 7. I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 18, 2011 (rajni)