Review jurisdiction is limited to error apparent on the face of the record; absent such error, reconsideration is refused.

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 is confined to a narrow jurisdiction and cannot be used to reargue the matter. A review lies only where a manifest error apparent on the face of the record is shown without elaborate reasoning. On examination of the record, no such error was found and no ground satisfying the review threshold was established. The review petition was therefore rejected, leaving the earlier judgment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The review power is confined to narrow grounds and is not meant to permit rehearing of the matter. A review can be entertained only when a manifest error, evident without elaborate reasoning, is shown on the face of the record. On perusal of the record, no such error was found and no ground satisfying the requirements of review was established.

Conclusion: The petition did not satisfy the threshold for review and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The judgment leaves the earlier decision undisturbed and denies any reconsideration on review.

Ratio Decidendi: Review is maintainable only on proof of an error apparent on the face of the record, and in its absence the court will not reopen the matter.

---