DATED 10th SEPTEMBER, 2013 (IN CHAMBER) ORDER [ 1. We have perused the Review Application Nos.298 to 303 of 2013, for review of the above said First Appeals, moved by the Appellants. There is delay in filing the said review petition. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay. 2. The review application has been filed against the order of this Commission, dated 01.03.2013, passed during the Circuit Bench at Hyderabad. 3. The record reveals that aggrieved by this order, the Appellants filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 19689-19694 of 2013, before the Honle Apex Court. The Honle Apex Court, vide its order, dated 18.06.2013, dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. 4. Thereafter, this review petition has been moved. It is difficult to fathom as to how it is maintainable under these circumstances. However, we have gone through the review petition. We have already heard the arguments. The arguments cannot be re-heard. There is no error, apparent, on the face of the record. However, in para xxvi of the review petition, it is stated :- xvi. That during the interim period, the persons who handled the above legal issues in the Appellant Institution left the institution, as such the Appellant could not appraise the subsequent developments to this Honle Commission at the time of final arguments. This Honle Commission decided the present matter in the absence of the said documents, which were vital to the fair adjudication of the present matter. A separate application seeking permission to file additional documents is filed along with this Review Application 5. Other pleas are only repetition of previous arguments, for which, we have decided that there is no error, apparent on the face of the record. So far as production of additional documents at this stage is concerned, the same is not permissible, under the law. A case cannot be kept in abeyance. Permission to lead further evidence at this stage, cannot be granted. It must be borne in mind that there is a difference between Section 47 of CPC, 1908 and Section 22(2) of CP Act, 1986, the latter of which, runs as follows:- 2. Power and procedure applicable to the National Commission. (1) xxx (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error, apparent on the face of record It does not provide for leading any additional evidence at the time of moving review petition. On that score, the Review Petition Nos. 298 to 303 of 2013, are not maintainable, and therefore, the same are dismissed.