https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128943 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is confined to patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits as if in appeal. The Supreme Court held that the review court had wrongly reversed the earlier limitation ruling without demonstrating any self-evident error, so the review order was unsustainable and was set aside. On the execution issue, the applicable limitation article depended on the date of alleged breach and accrual of the decree-holder's cause of action. Because that foundational fact had not been determined, the executing court was directed to first decide the date of breach and then re-examine limitation and the execution application afresh on merits. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 17:16:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128943 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is confined to patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits as if in appeal. The Supreme Court held that the review court had wrongly reversed the earlier limitation ruling without demonstrating any self-evident error, so the review order was unsustainable and was set aside. On the execution issue, the applicable limitation article depended on the date of alleged breach and accrual of the decree-holder's cause of action. Because that foundational fact had not been determined, the executing court was directed to first decide the date of breach and then re-examine limitation and the execution application afresh on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128943