Review jurisdiction cannot reopen decided issues; incidental impact on other proceedings does not amount to an error apparent.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, not to re-arguing matters already decided. The Court treated the petitioner's objections about confiscation, the revision order, and possible consequences in other proceedings as a repetition of earlier submissions. It also noted that the revision order had attained finality because no further challenge was pursued. Any incidental prejudice in proposed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, Section 130A Customs Act, or Section 127B Customs Act did not itself establish reviewable error. The review petition was therefore rejected and the earlier judgment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had made out any ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis that the earlier judgment allegedly omitted to consider the challenge to confiscation, the effect of the revision order, and the possible impact on any proposed proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 130A of the Customs Act, or Section 127B of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The review plea was examined against the settled scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The asserted grounds were found to be nothing more than a reiteration of arguments already considered in the earlier judgment. The Court noted that the earlier decision had dealt with the controversy on merits, including the scope of the challenge before the Tribunal and the effect of the revision order, and that the revision order had attained finality because no further challenge was pursued. The possibility that the earlier reasoning might affect the petitioner in some other proceeding could not, by itself, amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for review was established, and the review petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed, and the attempt to reopen the matter through review was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review is not a for re-arguing decided issues, and an incidental adverse impact on other proceedings does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

---