Review jurisdiction cannot delete possession findings where pleadings and evidence covered the issue and no prejudice was shown.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Where possession was specifically pleaded, evidence was led, and the parties were aware of their rival stands, the absence of a formally framed issue did not by itself create an apparent error or prejudice. The High Court was therefore not justified in deleting its earlier possession-related findings on review, and the deleted observations were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could exercise review jurisdiction to delete findings on possession from its earlier judgment merely because no specific issue on possession had been framed by the trial court.

Analysis: Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to the recognised grounds of discovery of new matter, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or for rehearing the matter on merits. The earlier observations on possession had been made on appreciation of pleadings and evidence, including the parties' conduct and the material already on record. Where possession was specifically pleaded, evidence was led on that aspect, and the parties were aware of the rival stand, absence of a formally framed issue did not by itself justify review. Non-framing of the issue caused no prejudice and did not convert a reasoned finding into an error apparent.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reviewing its earlier judgment and deleting the possession-related observations. The review order was unsustainable and the deleted observations stood restored in favour of the appellants.

---