Review jurisdiction cannot reargue merits; executing court must first ermine breach date before applying limitation in execution.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is confined to patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits as if in appeal. The Supreme Court held that the review court had wrongly reversed the earlier limitation ruling without demonstrating any self-evident error, so the review order was unsustainable and was set aside. On the execution issue, the applicable limitation article depended on the date of alleged breach and accrual of the decree-holder's cause of action. Because that foundational fact had not been determined, the executing court was directed to first decide the date of breach and then re-examine limitation and the execution application afresh on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review order could be sustained when the grounds raised did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record and the review court effectively reappreciated the merits of the earlier decision; (ii) whether the execution matter required a finding on the date of alleged breach before deciding the applicable article of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the review order could be sustained when the grounds raised did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record and the review court effectively reappreciated the merits of the earlier decision.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the narrow limits of Order 47 Rule 1 and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. A review lies for patent error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, not for correction of an allegedly erroneous decision reached after re-examination of the merits. The impugned review order treated the matter as if it were an appeal and reversed the earlier decision on limitation without demonstrating a self-evident error.

Conclusion: The review order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the execution matter required a finding on the date of alleged breach before deciding the applicable article of limitation.

Analysis: The applicability of the competing limitation articles depended on determining when the decree was allegedly breached and when the cause of action accrued to the decree-holder. Since neither the executing court nor the earlier revisional order recorded a finding on that essential fact, the matter had to be decided on merits after considering that question along with the other issues in the execution application.

Conclusion: The execution court was directed to determine the date of breach and then decide the limitation question and the execution application afresh on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned review order was annulled, the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits, and the appeal succeeded with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is limited to patent errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked to reargue or overturn a decision on merits; where an essential factual foundation for limitation is absent, the executing court must first determine that fact before applying the relevant limitation provision.

---