Limited review jurisdiction requires a patent error on the record; absent that ground, interference is unavailable.

Review jurisdiction is confined to narrow grounds, requiring a patent error on the face of the record or another basis comparable to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Mere disagreement with the earlier decision is insufficient, and interference is unavailable unless the applicant shows a clear ground within the limited scope of review. On the facts stated, no such error or permissible ground was established, so the review petitions did not warrant interference and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other ground warranting interference under the limited scope of review.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the narrow grounds recognised for review, and interference is impermissible unless a patent error on the record or a ground akin to those under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is shown. The petitioners did not establish any such ground, and no material was shown to bring the case within the permissible ambit of review.

Conclusion: The review petitions did not merit interference and were dismissed.

---