Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or reopen final findings on property partibility under civil procedure.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over a final decision. An apparent error must be self-evident and not depend on lengthy reasoning or competing views. Where the High Court's earlier ruling on partibility of the disputed property had attained finality, reconsideration of title, possession, and the effect of sale deeds through review amounted to appellate re-examination. The review judgment, and the consequential dismissal of the second appeal on the disputed plot, were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in review, exceeded the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reappreciating the evidence and reversing its earlier final decision on partibility of the property.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent must be self-evident and not one requiring long reasoning or two possible views. The earlier judgment of the High Court on the disputed plot had become final, and the review court could not sit in appeal over that decision by reconsidering the entire oral and documentary evidence. Reassessment of title, possession, and the effect of the sale deeds amounted to appellate re-examination rather than review.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond its review jurisdiction; the review judgment and the consequential dismissal of the second appeal on the disputed plot were unsustainable.

---