https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273601 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to discovery of new and important evidence, due diligence-based inability to produce material, or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error requiring detailed reasoning or capable of two views does not qualify, and review cannot be used to reopen the merits or obtain a rehearing. Applying that standard, no patent mistake was shown in the order under review, so the review petition was not maintainable. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:42:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273601 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to discovery of new and important evidence, due diligence-based inability to produce material, or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error requiring detailed reasoning or capable of two views does not qualify, and review cannot be used to reopen the merits or obtain a rehearing. Applying that standard, no patent mistake was shown in the order under review, so the review petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273601