Review jurisdiction cannot reopen decided issues where voting procedure disputes depend on mixed law and fact.

Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue issues already considered in an appellate order. The challenge to the voting procedure turned on both statutory provisions and the factual matrix of the meeting, so it was not a pure question of law warranting review. The Court found that the controversy, including maintainability concerns and interlocutory relief issues, had already been examined, and that at most an alternative view was being advanced. No patent error was shown, and the review petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier appellate order, and whether the questions relating to the voting procedure and maintainability of the appeals furnished a pure question of law warranting interference in review.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting a patent error, and cannot be used to reargue matters already considered or to undertake a rehearing on the merits. The earlier appellate order had already examined the nature of the controversy, the interim relief sought before the Company Law Board, and the legality of interference at the interlocutory stage. The challenge concerning the voting procedure was found to depend on the interaction of statutory provisions and the factual matrix of the meeting, and therefore did not present a pure question of law divorced from facts. The Court held that the issues sought to be reopened had already been addressed in the earlier order, and that the grievance at best reflected a possible alternative view, which is insufficient for review.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, the matters raised were not fit for reopening in review, and the review petitions failed.

---