Review jurisdiction limited to manifest errors; warrant order stood because no apparent mistake was shown.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or appeal. Where a judgment-debtor had repeatedly been directed to file an affidavit of assets, did not challenge those directions, and still failed to comply after further opportunity, the objection that no such affidavit was required did not disclose any self-evident error in the warrant order. The review request was therefore not maintainable, and the warrant of arrest order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order issuing warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor called for review on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to correction of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or appeal. The record showed that the judgment-debtor had been repeatedly directed to file an affidavit of assets, those directions were not challenged, and even after further opportunity no compliance was made. On those facts, the objection that such affidavit was not required did not disclose any self-evident error in the impugned order.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the request for review was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The warrant order remained undisturbed and the review application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked to reopen a concluded decision where the alleged error requires detailed reasoning or amounts to an appeal in disguise.

---