Writ review jurisdiction remains narrow: only recognised grounds justify review, not merits-based correction or procedural objections.

Review jurisdiction in writ proceedings is limited to recognised grounds, including discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits or correct an alleged appellate error. Non-consideration of documents already on the record did not justify review where those documents were not relied on in the writ proceedings. A procedural objection that more than one writ petition should have been filed also did not amount to a reviewable error. The review was therefore beyond jurisdiction, and the order granting it was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to review the earlier judgment and whether the stated grounds justified exercise of review power.

Analysis: The power of review in a writ proceeding is confined to recognised grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds. It cannot be used as a substitute for appellate correction of an allegedly erroneous decision on merits. The alleged non-consideration of two documents already on the record, when they were not relied upon in the writ proceedings, did not furnish a valid basis for review. Nor did the objection that more than one writ petition should have been filed amount to a reviewable error, since that was only a procedural matter.

Conclusion: The review was jurisdiction and the order allowing it was unsustainable.

---