Review jurisdiction limited to apparent errors; rehearing on merits is impermissible and review relief was rejected.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to rehear issues already decided or to reargue the merits as an appeal in disguise. The review applications merely sought reconsideration of questions previously examined and rejected, and no manifest error in the earlier judgment was shown. The Madras HC therefore found no ground to entertain review and rejected the applications, leaving the prior judgment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review applications disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: The scope of review is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and does not permit a rehearing of issues already decided. A review cannot be used to reargue the merits or to convert the proceeding into an appeal in disguise. The grounds urged merely sought to revisit questions that had already been considered and rejected in the earlier judgment, and no manifest error was shown in that decision.

Conclusion: The applications for review were not maintainable on merits and were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed, and no review relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked for rehearing or reappreciation of matters already decided.

---