Review jurisdiction limited to patent error; re-argument of decided issues cannot justify reopening concluded matters.

Review jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly; it cannot be used to reargue the same issues, revive rejected submissions, or obtain a second hearing on concluded matters. Interference is justified only where there is a glaring omission, patent mistake, or other grave error showing judicial fallibility, while minor or inconsequential errors do not warrant reconsideration. Finality of the earlier order remains a material consideration, and a counsel's certificate is not a routine basis for re-litigation. The review petition was held not maintainable on the grounds urged and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review petition can be entertained merely to reargue the same matters decided earlier, and what standards govern interference in review.

Analysis: Review is an exceptional jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly. It is not meant to permit a second hearing on the same grounds or to revive arguments already considered and rejected. Interference is warranted only where there is a glaring omission, patent mistake, or like grave error demonstrating judicial fallibility; minor or inconsequential errors and repetition of earlier submissions do not justify review. The finality attaching to the earlier order remains an important consideration, and counsel's certificate should not be treated as a routine formality for re-litigation.

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

Final Conclusion: Review jurisdiction cannot be used as a device for rehearing concluded issues, and only grave and patent errors justify reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A review lies only for a glaring omission, patent mistake, or similar grave error, and not for re-argument of the same case or a second attempt to reopen matters already decided.

---