Review jurisdiction limited to apparent error on record; merits cannot be reopened through a disguised rehearing.

Review jurisdiction is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record or another legally sufficient ground of similar character under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It cannot be used to reopen the merits, reappreciate evidence, or seek a rehearing merely because another view is possible. Applying that standard, the High Court found no patent mistake or obvious error in the earlier order disposing of the income-tax appeal. The attempt was treated as a merits challenge rather than a proper review ground, so no basis for review was established and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient ground so as to justify review of the earlier order disposing of the income-tax appeal.

Analysis: The governing limits of review were applied with reference to Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Review is confined to an error that is self-evident from the record, or to another legally sufficient ground of similar character. It cannot be used to reopen the merits, to reappreciate evidence, or to obtain a rehearing merely because a different view is possible. On the facts, no patent mistake or obvious error in the earlier order was shown, and the attempt was in substance a challenge to the merits of the disposal already made.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the petition failed.

---