Review jurisdiction cannot reopen evidence or appellate findings in specific performance disputes; rehearing order set aside.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to error apparent, new matter, mistake or other sufficient reason, and cannot be used to rehear the case or reappreciate evidence. Questions such as readiness and willingness in a specific performance suit, novation, and discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, once decided on the appellate record, cannot be reopened in review merely because another view is possible. Subsequent events known to the parties and the court do not by themselves justify review. The High Court therefore exceeded the permissible limits of review jurisdiction in recalling its earlier appellate judgment and directing rehearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, could recall its earlier appellate judgment by reappreciating evidence and by effectively exercising appellate powers, including reconsideration of readiness and willingness and discretionary relief in a suit for specific performance.

Analysis: Review power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to the statutory grounds of error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake, or other sufficient reason. It does not permit a rehearing on merits or a reappreciation of evidence, because review is not an appeal in disguise. The question whether the plaintiff had continuously been ready and willing to perform the contract, and whether there was novation or any basis for moulding relief under the Specific Relief Act, were matters already considered on the appellate record and could not be reopened merely because a different view was possible. Subsequent events known to the parties and the court did not constitute a new matter justifying review, and discretionary considerations under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act could not be invoked to alter a concluded appellate determination in review.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible limits of review jurisdiction; the order recalling the earlier judgment and directing rehearing could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reassess evidence or substitute a different appellate view, and it is confined strictly to the statutory grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---