Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Heard on C.M.Appl.No.1/2025. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 22 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, C.M.Appl. No.1/2025 to condone the delay is allowed.

2. The present review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2025 in WA No.1822/2025 whereby the interim order dated 10.07.2025 in WP(C) No.24746/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge has been vacated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that they had challenged Ext.P24 order passed by the 3rd respondent, Sports Council, directing all District Councils not to attest the certificates issued to the students/candidates who have secured best positions in the State level championship conducted by the petitioner herein. The recognition of the petitioner is not withdrawn or suspended by the Sports Council so far. The learned Single Judge had stayed the operation of Ext.P24 order whereby the Associations like the petitioner were restrained from issuing the certificates and attesting them. On perusal of the interim relief as well as the final relief in the Writ Petition. It can be seen that the interim relief also is of the nature of final relief. Therefore stay granted by the learned Single Judge of Ext.P24 could not have been done since it amounts to final relief. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed the Writ Appeal against the interim order dated 10.07.2025 in the Writ Petition. This Court had come to the conclusion that such stay cannot be granted which amounts to final relief at the interim stage. Therefore, the order of stay dated 10.07.2025 was vacated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Review Petition. The petitioner has discussed the merits of the case in the Review and no ground as to why the conclusion arrived at by us cannot be allowed to stand. The petitioner is unable to point out any apparent error on the face of record so as to interfere.

4. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:

                  “1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering

                  himself aggrieved –

                  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

                  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

                  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

                  (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

                  1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"

5. A glance at the aforesaid provisions 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.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the grounds, available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."

7. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bhagirathi Ammal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the judgment impugned.

                  In view of the aforementioned, no case is made out to review the interim order. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.