Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error or new matter; rehearing on merits is impermissible.

Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason within those limits. A review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to secure a rehearing on the merits, and a request requiring full reappreciation of facts does not disclose a reviewable error. As no new development or other valid ground was shown, the review application was held not maintainable on merits and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any ground warranting reopening of the earlier order, and whether the review jurisdiction could be used to seek a rehearing on the merits.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the limited grounds recognised in civil procedure, namely discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason read within those limits. A review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, and a contention requiring complete reappreciation of facts does not furnish a reviewable error. On the facts, no new development or other ground justifying review was shown.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable on merits and was dismissed.

---