Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent errors and cannot be used to reargue merits or seek a fresh view.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or other sufficient reason. It cannot be used to re-argue the case, seek a different view on merits, or operate as an appeal in disguise. On the facts stated, the grounds raised showed only a request for reconsideration and did not disclose any patent mistake in the earlier order. The review petition was therefore not maintainable on the basis urged, and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or other sufficient reason. It cannot be used to re-argue the matter, substitute a different view, or convert review into an appeal in disguise. The grounds urged did not demonstrate any patent mistake or apparent error in the earlier order; they only sought reconsideration on merits, which is impermissible in review.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the review petition was not maintainable on the basis urged.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed because the challenge failed to satisfy the limited requirements for review jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record or comparable limited grounds, and it cannot be invoked to reappreciate the merits or substitute a fresh view.

---