Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error or new matter; mere reargument on merits cannot reopen the order.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is narrow and cannot be used as an appellate substitute; review lies only for discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere attempt to reargue the merits or challenge an alleged erroneous view on facts or law is insufficient. As the grounds advanced only sought reconsideration of the revisional decision and disclosed no self-evident or manifest mistake, the review petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground sufficient to reopen the order dated 30.01.2024.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is narrow and cannot be used as an appellate substitute. An order may be reviewed only on recognised grounds such as discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. A mere erroneous view on facts or law, or an attempt to reargue the matter on merits, does not justify review. The grounds urged sought reconsideration of the revisional decision on merits and did not disclose any self-evident or manifest mistake.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was liable to be dismissed.

---