Narrow review jurisdiction limits reargument on the same record; dismissal of an SLP alone does not bar review.

Review jurisdiction remains narrow and cannot be used to reargue the case on the same record or to challenge findings on merits. A new counsel who did not appear in the original writ hearing cannot ordinarily reopen the matter in review, except where a patent error apparent on the face of the record is shown. Dismissal of a special leave petition before grant of leave does not by itself bar review or cause merger of the High Court judgment, but review is still confined to new matter, mistake, or analogous sufficient cause. Reappraisal of evidence and pleadings falls outside review, and the request for further time to vacate the premises also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a review petition could be entertained and argued by a new counsel who had not appeared in the original writ proceedings; (ii) whether, after dismissal of the special leave petition, the review petition was maintainable and disclosed any ground within the scope of review jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether a review petition could be entertained and argued by a new counsel who had not appeared in the original writ proceedings.

Analysis: Review proceedings are confined to the limited grounds recognised under review jurisdiction and are not a rehearing on the same facts and materials. A counsel who was not present at the original hearing cannot ordinarily re-open matters by re-arguing the case on the same record, since questions relating to what transpired during arguments and how the original case was conducted are not suitable for reconsideration in review except in exceptional cases showing a clear error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The objection to the review being pressed by a new counsel was upheld against the applicants.

Issue (ii): whether, after dismissal of the special leave petition, the review petition was maintainable and disclosed any ground within the scope of review jurisdiction.

Analysis: A dismissal of special leave before grant of leave does not operate as merger of the High Court judgment, and the High Court is not thereby deprived of review jurisdiction. However, review can be exercised only on discovery of new matter, mistake, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient cause. Reappraisal of the same evidence, pleadings and documents, or an attempt to obtain a different view on merits, falls outside the ambit of review and belongs to appellate jurisdiction. The alleged omissions and factual challenges required long-drawn reasoning and did not disclose any self-evident error.

Conclusion: The review petition was held not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review jurisdiction was held to be narrow, not a substitute for appeal, and the request for further time to vacate the premises also failed for want of any sufficient basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to reargue the matter on the same record or to correct alleged errors on merits; only a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or an analogous sufficient reason can justify review, and dismissal of an SLP before grant of leave does not by itself bar such review.

---