Review jurisdiction limited where alleged factual error is immaterial and new material does not alter the earlier order.

Review was refused because neither alleged basis showed a material error affecting the earlier order. The Court noted that the calculation filed with the rejoinder had not been challenged by sur-rejoinder and no time had been sought to verify it, so the observation that it was undisputed was justified. The January 2014 letter concerning renewal of the fixed deposit also did not support review, as it had not been placed before the Court earlier and, in any event, the prior order had already left the enquiry open on why the deposit was not renewed and who was responsible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order required review on the ground that the calculation filed with the rejoinder had allegedly not been verified by the review petitioner; (ii) whether the earlier order required review on the basis of the January 2014 letter concerning renewal of the fixed deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order required review on the ground that the calculation filed with the rejoinder had allegedly not been verified by the review petitioner.

Analysis: The review petitioner had not sought time to verify the calculations after service of the rejoinder and had also not filed any sur-rejoinder disputing them. On those facts, the earlier observation that the calculation was not disputed was justified, and the plea that insufficient time was available to check the figures did not furnish a basis for review.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order required review on the basis of the January 2014 letter concerning renewal of the fixed deposit.

Analysis: The letter was admittedly not brought to the notice of the Court at the earlier hearing. In any event, the earlier order had already left it open for enquiry to determine why the fixed deposit was not renewed and to fix responsibility, so the letter did not alter the basis or effect of the decision.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no reason to interfere with the earlier order and declined review of the relief already granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A review will not be entertained where the alleged factual error was not shown to have affected the decision and where the material relied upon was either not disputed in the proceedings or was not brought on record at the earlier hearing.

---