Limited review jurisdiction cannot be used for rehearing or reappreciation of the case; no review ground was made out.

Review jurisdiction is limited to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason; it cannot be used for rehearing or reappreciation of the case. The applicant showed no new development and no self-evident error in the earlier order, but sought complete re-adjudication, which is impermissible in review. No ground for review was therefore made out, and the review application was not maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any ground warranting exercise of the limited review jurisdiction.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the statutory grounds of discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason. It cannot be used to obtain a rehearing on facts or to convert the review forum into an appeal in disguise. The applicant did not show any new development, nor any self-evident error in the earlier order; instead, the application sought complete re-adjudication of the matter, which is impermissible in review.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out; the application was not maintainable on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only within the narrow statutory grounds of apparent error, new material, or equivalent sufficient reason, and cannot be invoked for rehearing or reappreciation of the case.

---