Limited review jurisdiction bars rehearing, requiring new material or an apparent error on the record.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII CPC is limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or to an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to reargue issues already decided. The grounds raised had already been considered in the earlier judgment, and no new material or patent error was shown. Liberty granted by the Supreme Court to seek review did not expand the settled scope of review. No ground for review was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review under the limited scope of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, could not be produced earlier, or to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. It is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for rehearing the matter merely because a party now seeks a different view or wishes to improve its earlier arguments. The grounds raised in review were already considered in the earlier judgment, and no new material or patent error was shown. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a review petition did not enlarge the scope of review beyond its settled limits.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out and the review petition was liable to be dismissed.

---