Review jurisdiction requires new evidence to affect the decree itself; an independent ground defeats review.

Review jurisdiction is confined to cases where newly discovered evidence is capable of altering or cancelling the original decree. Here, the application relied on fresh evidence concerning legitimacy, but the decree also rested on an independent ground, namely want of notice under Section 48 of Local Act No. III of 1899. Because acceptance of the new material would not have displaced that separate basis, review was not maintainable. The refusal of review was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for review could be allowed on the basis of newly discovered evidence when, even if accepted, the original decree would still stand on another independent ground.

Analysis: The application for review was founded on alleged new and important evidence relating to legitimacy. The Court held that the review jurisdiction is intended to correct a decree only where the new matter would alter or cancel the original decree. Since the decree had also been dismissed for want of notice under Section 48 of Local Act No. III of 1899, success on the legitimacy issue alone would not have displaced the decree. The lower court was therefore justified in refusing review.

Conclusion: The application for review was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the order refusing review was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only where the newly discovered material is capable of altering or cancelling the original decree, and not where the decree would remain effective on an independent ground.

---