Limited review jurisdiction bars rehearing where rectification is used to reopen a concluded decision.

Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another legally recognised ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. A request styled as rectification under Section 71(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 cannot be used to reopen the merits of an earlier decision or seek rehearing of issues already decided. A review is not an appeal, and an application that in substance asks for appellate reconsideration is impermissible. On that basis, the review petition was held not maintainable on merits and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground justifying review of the earlier order, particularly on the petitioner's claim to rectification under Section 71(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The application styled as rectification was found to be, in substance, an attempt to reopen the merits of the earlier decision. The scope of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. A review is not an appeal and cannot be used for a rehearing of issues already considered and decided. On that basis, the claimed rectification under Section 71(2) was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on merits and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue or reopen a concluded decision unless a clear error apparent on the face of the record, new material, or another legally recognised ground for review is established; a rectification request that effectively seeks appellate reconsideration is not permissible.

---