Review jurisdiction limited to clear errors apparent on the record; re-argument on merits cannot reopen a concluded judgment.

Review jurisdiction is confined to a narrow scope and cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or appeal. The High Court held that the petition merely re-argued the merits of the controversy and relied on additional materials not forming part of the pleadings. As no patent mistake, manifest error, or other ground showing an error apparent on the face of the record was established, review was found not maintainable and the earlier judgment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to a narrow compass and cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or appeal. The judgment under review had been rendered after consideration of the materials and submissions on record. The challenge raised in review was essentially a re-argument on the merits of the controversy, and the additional materials relied upon were not part of the pleadings. No patent mistake, manifest error, or other ground justifying review was shown.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the review petition was not maintainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment was left undisturbed and the review proceedings ended in dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only where a clear error apparent on the face of the record is shown, and it cannot be invoked to reargue the case or reopen a concluded adjudication.

---