Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent, with Kerala High Court stay on Notification No. 5/2023 remaining binding.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue issues or raise grounds outside the earlier order. The grounds advanced did not fit that standard, and the continued stay of Notification No. 5/2023 by the Kerala High Court was treated as binding on the department. A later decision concerning a different notification relating to spices did not displace the operative stay or justify reopening the direction for provisional release of the imported apples. The review petition was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition sought to reopen the earlier order on grounds falling within review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the continued stay of Notification No. 5/2023 by the Kerala High Court warranted review of the direction for provisional release of the imported apples.

Analysis: Review is confined to narrow grounds and cannot be used to re-argue matters or rely on considerations alien to the order under review. The grounds urged were held to be outside the scope of the earlier decision and did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The stay of the notification by the Kerala High Court continued to operate, and a judicial stay affecting the notification was treated as binding on the department. The later decision concerning a different notification relating to spices did not displace the operative stay on Notification No. 5/2023 or create a basis to revisit the earlier order.

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

---