Review jurisdiction cannot reopen decided issues absent an apparent error or new material; review treated as a disguised appeal.

Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit re-argument of matters already decided or correction of conclusions merely because a party disagrees with them. The alleged factual mistake about the date of communication did not affect the substantive findings, and no new material or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. The Madras HC therefore treated the review as a disguised appeal and declined interference with the earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The grounds urged in review merely questioned the correctness of the earlier conclusions and sought reconsideration of issues already decided. The alleged factual mistake regarding the date of communication of the impugned order did not affect the ultimate findings. No new material, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no sufficient cause within the scope of review jurisdiction was shown.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable as a disguised appeal and did not justify interference with the earlier order.

---