Review jurisdiction limited to patent error on the record; mere re-argument of merits will not sustain review petitions.

Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting a manifest error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case or seek a rehearing on merits. The court found that the earlier judgment had already considered the materials and submissions placed before it, while the additional documents relied on in review were not part of the pleadings. As the applicants were effectively attempting to revisit the merits rather than demonstrate any patent error, no error apparent was made out and the review petitions were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and is not a substitute for rehearing or an appeal. The challenged judgment had been rendered after considering the materials placed on record and the submissions of both sides. The additional documents relied upon in review were not part of the pleadings, and the attempt was, in substance, to revisit the merits of the earlier decision rather than demonstrate any patent error.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the review petitions were not maintainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed and the review proceedings came to an end against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Review can be exercised only for a manifest error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-arguing the case or seeking a rehearing on merits.

---