Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error on the record; no basis was shown to reopen the earlier refund and interest ruling.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier judgment had already examined the refund claim and the question of interest, including the period for which interest was declined. No patent mistake or legal error was shown on the record to justify reopening that decision. The review petition was therefore not maintainable and was rejected on the ground that no error apparent had been made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to cases showing an error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned judgment had already considered the refund claim and the question of interest, including the period for which interest was declined. On the materials placed, no patent mistake or legal error was shown that would justify reopening the earlier decision. The review petition therefore could not be entertained on merits.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and was rejected on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out.

---