https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198526 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used to reargue the case, seek rehearing on merits, or substitute one possible view for another. On that standard, the review application disclosed no such error and was not maintainable. The request to condone delay also failed because the explanation was vague, unsupported by dates, and did not show sufficient cause for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. The proceedings therefore failed on both merits and limitation, and the incidental direction concerning the alternative plot claim did not affect that result. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198526 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used to reargue the case, seek rehearing on merits, or substitute one possible view for another. On that standard, the review application disclosed no such error and was not maintainable. The request to condone delay also failed because the explanation was vague, unsupported by dates, and did not show sufficient cause for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. The proceedings therefore failed on both merits and limitation, and the incidental direction concerning the alternative plot claim did not affect that result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198526