Review jurisdiction under CPC is narrow; it cannot reopen merits or sustain review on an Order II Rule 2 bar.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used to rehear the case or correct a decision on merits. The High Court exceeded that scope by reopening its earlier judgment on grounds requiring further reasoning. The supposed bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC also did not justify review, because that issue was not germane to the cancellation suit and the earlier plaint had reserved the right to sue for specific performance. The review order was therefore unsustainable, and the earlier decree stood revived.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could review its earlier judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the conclusion that the later suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 furnished a valid basis for review.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could review its earlier judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 is confined to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason. The power cannot be used to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits. An error apparent must be self-evident and not one that requires long-drawn reasoning or argument. Where an appealable remedy exists, the power of review must be exercised with circumspection.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible scope of review and could not reopen the earlier judgment on the basis adopted by it.

Issue (ii): whether the conclusion that the later suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 furnished a valid basis for review

Analysis: The question of bar under Order II Rule 2 arose in the context of the suit for specific performance and was not germane to the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaint in the earlier suit had referred to the oral agreement and had reserved the right to sue for specific performance. On that basis, the conclusion that there was no leave under Order II Rule 2 and that the subsequent proceedings were barred was erroneous and did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. Issues such as res judicata, limitation, maintainability, and court fee may be treated as preliminary issues where appropriate, but that principle did not justify the review order passed here.

Conclusion: The finding of a bar under Order II Rule 2 could not sustain the review order.

Final Conclusion: The review order was legally unsustainable, and the earlier decision restoring the decree in favour of the appellant stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Review is maintainable only for an error apparent on the face of the record or other limited grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or to reappreciate a concluded issue on merits.

---