Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to patent error or similar sufficient reason; rehearing on merits is impermissible.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter, patent error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason of a like nature. It cannot be used to reargue the matter, seek reappreciation of evidence, or obtain a rehearing because another view is possible. As the material did not disclose any self-evident error in the earlier order, no ground for review was made out and reconsideration was rejected, leaving the earlier order undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason warranting interference with the earlier order.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason of a like nature. A review cannot be used to reargue the matter, to seek reappreciation of evidence, or to obtain a rehearing merely because a different view is possible. The material placed did not disclose any self-evident error in the earlier order.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the request for reconsideration was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed and the review petitions failed on the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Review is maintainable only for a patent error apparent on the face of the record or a comparable sufficient reason, and not for reappreciation of evidence or rehearing on merits.

---