Review jurisdiction cannot reopen unframed issues or reargue benami ownership merits; such challenges lie in appeal.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting limited errors and cannot be used to reopen questions not framed or considered in the second appeal. A party may not introduce a fresh issue for the first time in review, and a challenge directed at the merits of the earlier benami ownership ruling, including the effect of the Benami legislation, is a matter for appeal rather than review. The court therefore declined to re-examine the substantive benami controversy and held the review petition not maintainable for re-agitation of merits, with each party left to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petition could reopen questions that were not framed or considered in the second appeal; (ii) Whether the earlier judgment could be reviewed on the ground that the decision on benami ownership and the effect of section 4 of the Benami legislation was said to be erroneous.

Issue (i): Whether the review petition could reopen questions that were not framed or considered in the second appeal.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of limited errors and does not permit a party to raise and examine fresh questions that were not part of the appeal when heard. A matter not framed at the stage of admission of the second appeal could not be introduced for the first time in review.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier judgment could be reviewed on the ground that the decision on benami ownership and the effect of section 4 of the Benami legislation was said to be erroneous.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the merits of the earlier decision and against the legal basis on which the second appeal had been decided. Such a challenge, even if framed as reliance on later authority, was not a ground available within review and lay in appeal. The court therefore declined to re-examine the merits of the benami question in review.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable for re-agitation of merits and was dismissed, with parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to reargue questions on merits or to introduce issues not originally framed and considered; such grievances lie in appeal, not in review.

---