Limited review jurisdiction bars witness recall for routine re-cross-examination absent error apparent on the record.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, while Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC permit recall of a witness only for limited clarification and not to fill omissions or reopen evidence as a routine matter. As the witness had already been cross-examined at length on the relevant issues and no electronic record or comparable material was produced to justify further questioning, the earlier decision was consistent with these limits. No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the request for further cross-examination was not justified; the review was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, and whether recall of the witness for further cross-examination was justified under the applicable provisions.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. The power under Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is discretionary and is meant to enable the Court to clarify doubts in evidence, not to permit a party to fill up omissions or reopen evidence as a routine measure. The record showed that the witness had already been cross-examined at length on the relevant issues, and no electronic record or comparable material was produced to justify further cross-examination. The earlier decision was therefore found to be consistent with the settled limits on recall of witnesses.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the request for further cross-examination was not justified. The review was rightly dismissed.

---