Review jurisdiction cannot replace an appellate judgment with a different view on the merits; appeal is the proper remedy.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen and reverse a concluded second appeal judgment merely because another construction of the same document is possible. The document had already been interpreted in second appeal as a deed of settlement, and a later review order by another Judge, treating it as a will in the absence of the original Judge, amounted to substitution of one view for another on the merits. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party was an appeal, not review. The review order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and the second appeal judgment was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in review, could reopen and reverse a second appeal judgment merely because another view of the document was possible.

Analysis: The document had already been construed in second appeal and held to be a deed of settlement. On review, another Judge, in the absence of the Judge who decided the second appeal, construed the same document differently and treated it as a will. Review jurisdiction did not permit such substitution of views or disturbance of an earlier judgment on merits. The proper course for an aggrieved party was to challenge the second appeal judgment by way of appeal.

Conclusion: The review order was beyond jurisdiction and could not stand; the second appeal judgment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to re-argue and reverse a concluded judgment on a different view of the merits when the proper remedy is appeal.

---