Review jurisdiction limited to patent error; passing observations cannot be recast as binding findings to reopen merits.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is confined to discovery of new material, a patent error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-argue the case or seek a different view on the same material. The earlier remark that the return under Section 139 was non-est was treated as an obiter observation, not the ratio of the prior judgment, particularly because the matter had been remanded to the Tribunal. The omission to answer the substantial question of law did not itself justify review. No error apparent was shown, so the review application was rejected and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the earlier appellate order, and whether the observation that the return under Section 139 was non-est constituted a binding final finding.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to discovery of new material, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reason. It cannot be used to re-argue the case or to seek a different view on the same material. The earlier observation that the return under Section 139 was non-est was treated as a passing remark or obiter and not as the ratio of the earlier judgment, especially since the matter had been remanded to the Tribunal. The omission to answer the substantial question of law in the earlier appeal did not by itself furnish a ground for review.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the review jurisdiction could not be invoked to reopen the merits. The review application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed, and the challenge failed on the confined standard applicable to review.

Ratio Decidendi: A review cannot be entertained merely because another view on the same material is possible or because a passing observation is sought to be treated as the operative finding; only a patent error apparent on the face of the record can justify review.

---