Review jurisdiction remains open when no appeal was filed, and a patent legal error can justify correction on review.

A review under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is maintainable where, on the date of filing, no appeal has been preferred; a later or failed attempt to seek special leave does not by itself bar review. The Supreme Court clarified that review is confined to patent error and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise, but an error is apparent where a court says no substantial question of law arises despite an identical legal controversy having already been treated as substantial. The earlier refusal of special leave did not amount to a decision on the merits of the review issue, so it could not justify rejection of the review petition. The High Court's refusal to entertain review was therefore erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was right in refusing review of its earlier order declining a certificate of fitness on the ground that no substantial question of law arose, and whether the later refusal of special leave by the Supreme Court barred or affected the review jurisdiction.

Analysis: An application for review under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is maintainable if, on the date of filing, no appeal has been preferred. The pendency or later failure of an attempt to obtain special leave does not itself bar the High Court from deciding the review. A review lies only for patent error and not as a disguised appeal, but where the order under challenge states that no substantial question of law arises despite an identical and clearly legal controversy having already been recognized as substantial, the mistake is one apparent on the face of the record. The earlier refusal of special leave, being unsuccessful and not amounting to a decision on the merits of the review issue, could not justify rejection of the review petition. The prior order of the High Court therefore suffered from an apparent error in treating the matter as not involving a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the review was erroneous, and the review petitions ought to have been allowed.

---