IN CHAMBER This Review Application has been filed by the HSBC Bank on the ground that after delivery of the order on 13.02.2024 they have acquired certain more information, which, according to them, had not been disclosed by the complainant. They have further stated about the status of the title deeds that were deposited to urge that there was no correspondence made by the father of the complainant about the original title documents and also no disclosure was made about the gift deed made by the father in respect of the Green Park property. This has been described as a factor to prove that there was no loss suffered by the father of the complainant or the complainant as the property was available as valuable security. In sum and substance, since there was no loss suffered, to claim compensation without any evidence about the valuation of the property has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, review of the order dated 13.02.2024 has been sought. It is evident that this entire argument which has been raised is in respect of certain information collected after the delivery of the order. Such a course is not permissible in order to raise a ground of error apparent on the face of the record and as a matter of fact the Bank is seeking practically a rehearing of the matter. The aforesaid attempt is contrary to law for which reference may be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 185 wherein the Apex Court in para 15 of the judgment has observed, as under: “While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” Reference be had also to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, wherein in Para 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under: “It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v.State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L.Gupta v.D.N.Mehta (1971) 3 SCR 748,750. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N.Mohindroo v.Distt.Judge, Delhi (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order XL, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”: Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933.” The Review Application is misconceived and is accordingly rejected. IA No. 4201 of 2024 filed by the applicant seeking stay also stands disposed of. | 
