Limited review jurisdiction under CPC bars reopening merits absent an apparent error, leaving the review petition rejected.

Review jurisdiction is confined to the limited grounds under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to reargue the matter on merits. An error justifying review must be self-evident and not depend on long-drawn reasoning or reappreciation of evidence. Applying that standard, the High Court found no patent mistake or apparent error in the earlier order, and the review petition was rejected as not maintainable on the grounds urged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the order passed in the appeal.

Analysis: The scope of review is confined to the limited grounds recognised by Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reopen a matter merely because a different view on merits is possible. An error justifying review must be self-evident and not one that requires long-drawn reasoning, reappreciation of evidence, or rehearing of the case. Applying these principles, the Court found that no patent mistake or apparent error in the earlier order had been demonstrated.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.

---