Review jurisdiction under CPC cannot reopen final findings or reargue res judicata absent an apparent error or new evidence.

A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC requires new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it cannot be used to re-argue the merits of an earlier revisional order. The High Court noted that the tenant's challenge was directed at re-agitating the finding on the landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement, which had already been treated as final and was applied against the tenant on res judicata principles. Subsequent factual contentions and alleged omissions in considering pleadings did not justify review. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any ground under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for interference with the earlier revisional order, including any error apparent on the face of the record or any grave and palpable error warranting exercise of the High Court's review jurisdiction.

Analysis: The earlier revisional decision had treated the finding on the landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement as final and had applied the principle of res judicata against the tenant. The grounds urged in review sought, in substance, to re-agitate that legal conclusion and to rely on subsequent factual contentions and alleged omission to consider certain pleadings. Such matters did not disclose any new and important evidence, any mistake apparent from the record, or any other sufficient reason for review. A mere erroneous decision on a legal question, even if assumed, is not a ground for review and must be corrected, if at all, in higher proceedings.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the review petition was not maintainable on merits.

---