Review jurisdiction cannot reopen a concluded judgment merely because a later decision takes a different view.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to discovery of new matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record. A later co-ordinate Bench decision taking a different view does not, by itself, justify review or reopen a concluded judgment. The court held that the applicants were seeking rehearing on the basis of a subsequent judgment rather than identifying any patent or self-evident error in the order under review, so the review petition was not maintainable on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition was maintainable on the ground that a subsequent co-ordinate Bench decision had set aside the earlier order relied upon in the writ petition, and whether such subsequent change in law or later decision constituted an error apparent on the face of the record under review jurisdiction.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to discovery of new matter, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. A later reversal or modification of the legal position in another case does not, by itself, justify review. The Court found that the review petitioners were seeking rehearing on the basis of a subsequent judgment and not pointing out any patent or self-evident error in the order under review. The mere fact that another decision later took a different view was held insufficient to reopen a concluded judgment.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the pleaded ground and the challenge to the earlier order failed.

Final Conclusion: The order under review remained undisturbed because no error apparent on the face of the record was shown and a subsequent decision in another case could not be used to reopen the concluded matter.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent change in law or later decision in another case is not a ground for review unless the order under review itself contains an error apparent on the face of the record.

---