Review jurisdiction cannot reopen merits absent an error apparent on the face of the record; the petition was rejected.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and cannot be used to reargue the case or reappreciate evidence. The court found no self-evident error in the earlier order, and the audit objection did not disclose any reviewable mistake or apparent illegality. The review petition was therefore not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient ground warranting recall of the earlier order disposing of the appeal.

Analysis: Review under Section 114 read with 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. The settled principle is that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for reappreciation of evidence or rehearing of the matter on merits. Applying these principles, the record did not show any self-evident error in the earlier order. The plea based on audit objection did not establish a reviewable error, and no material was shown to demonstrate that the earlier disposal suffered from apparent illegality.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited to patent errors or other grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and cannot be invoked to reargue the case or reappreciate evidence in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record.

---