Review jurisdiction limited to apparent errors; new material outside pleadings cannot reopen a concluded judgment.

Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a rehearing or substitute for appeal. The court noted that the earlier judgment had already considered the pleadings, documents, evidence, and submissions, and that the material relied on in review was not part of the original pleadings. On that basis, it found no ground to reopen the matter and held that no apparent error had been shown to justify review.

---

---

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

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error that is apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or appeal, and the court emphasized that it had already considered the pleadings, documents, evidence, and submissions while delivering the earlier judgment. The material relied on in review was also not part of the pleadings, and the court found no basis to reopen the matter.

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

---