Review jurisdiction requires recognised grounds; alleged misinterpretation and omitted prayers did not justify reopening the judgment.

A review application failed because the petitioner showed no recognised ground for review. The HC found that the alleged misinterpretation of earlier judgments and the claimed omission to deal with certain prayers, pleadings and contentions did not establish an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new material, or patent illegality. As none of the settled review grounds was made out on a bare perusal of the papers, the review petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any ground warranting review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: The review petition was founded on alleged misinterpretation of prior judgments and omission to deal with certain prayers, pleadings and contentions. On a bare perusal of the review papers, the Court found that none of the recognised grounds for review were established, namely error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new material, or patent illegality.

Conclusion: The review application was not entertained and was dismissed.

---