Review jurisdiction under civil procedure cannot reappreciate merits or act as an appeal in disguise.

Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or a comparable sufficient reason, and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. An order that reappreciates rival contentions, reassesses the merits, and remits the matter for fresh consideration travels beyond the permissible scope of review. The Supreme Court noted that the impugned review order did not identify an apparent error but instead reopened the controversy on merits, thereby exceeding review powers. The review order was therefore liable to be set aside and the earlier order restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could reopen the earlier order by reappreciating the merits and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Review is not an appeal in disguise and must remain confined to the limited grounds recognised by the Code, namely discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous sufficient reason. An error that requires re-examination of rival contentions and fresh assessment of the case on merits does not fall within the permissible scope of review. The impugned order did not identify an apparent error; instead, it undertook a broader reappreciation of the controversy and travelled beyond the bounds of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction. The order in review was liable to be set aside and the earlier order was restored, in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the review order was annulled, leaving the earlier order operative and the parties to proceed before the Trial Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure can correct only an apparent error or other legally confined ground and cannot be used to re-decide the matter on merits as if exercising appellate power.

---