Limited review jurisdiction bars rearguing appeal points, while false documents and misleading statements can justify dismissal with costs.

Review jurisdiction is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record, new and important evidence, or other narrowly recognised sufficient reason, and it cannot be used to reargue matters that belong in appeal. A review petition challenging conditions imposed for release of detained goods was therefore outside the permissible scope and not maintainable. The filing of false statements and doubtful documents, including inconsistent explanations about a building plan and the absence of a permit, was treated as a serious abuse of process. That conduct justified dismissal of the review petition with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petition disclosed any ground falling within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the petitioner's false statements and use of doubtful documents warranted dismissal of the review petition with costs.

Issue (i): Whether the review petition disclosed any ground falling within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Analysis: Review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or like sufficient reason, and it cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. The challenge made in the review was, in substance, only to the conditions imposed earlier for release of detained goods, which was a matter for intra-court appeal and not review.

Conclusion: The review petition did not disclose any permissible ground for review and was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's false statements and use of doubtful documents warranted dismissal of the review petition with costs.

Analysis: The record showed serious inconsistencies regarding the building plan and absence of a building permit, and the explanations offered were found unacceptable. The Court treated the filing of false statements and misleading documents as a serious abuse of judicial process and considered that such conduct justified a deterrent costs order.

Conclusion: The petitioner's conduct warranted dismissal of the review petition with costs.

Final Conclusion: The review petition was finally rejected, and the petitioner was burdened with costs for abusing the process of the Court and for failing to establish any ground for review.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is confined to narrowly recognised grounds and cannot be invoked to reargue a matter that lies in appeal, while false affidavits and misleading documents may justify dismissal with exemplary costs.

---