Review jurisdiction limited by appeal remedy and no error apparent on the face of the record.

A review application may be entertained by a transferee court where the original Judge is unavailable after superannuation. However, review is not maintainable when the impugned judgment is appealable, because review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. The Court also held that an allegedly inconsistent observation on two inspection applications, even if possibly wrong on merits, did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. On these grounds, the review application failed and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review application could be entertained by the transferee court after the original Judge had superannuated; (ii) whether the review was maintainable when the impugned judgment was appealable; and (iii) whether the alleged inconsistency regarding the two inspection applications amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issue (i): whether the review application could be entertained by the transferee court after the original Judge had superannuated

Analysis: The review was sought before a Judge other than the Judge who had decided the revision. The Court held that the original Judge was no longer available in the Court because of superannuation. In that situation, the view that the transferee Court lacked jurisdiction was not accepted, and the authorities recognising competence of the transferee Court were treated as applicable.

Conclusion: The Court held that the review application could be entertained by the transferee Court.

Issue (ii): whether the review was maintainable when the impugned judgment was appealable

Analysis: The impugned judgment was found to be appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Constitution. The Court applied the principle that where an appellate remedy is available, review is not the proper course and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

Conclusion: The Court held that the review application was not maintainable.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged inconsistency regarding the two inspection applications amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record

Analysis: The challenged observation was treated as a view taken on the merits in revision. The Court held that even if that view were incorrect, it would not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of review.

Conclusion: The Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

Final Conclusion: The review failed because the challenge did not satisfy the requirements for review jurisdiction, and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used where an appellate remedy is available, and an incorrect merits view does not by itself constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

---