https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286795 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits or seek a de novo examination of the writ decision. In an appeal arising only from the review order, the Court declined to let the appellants convert the proceedings into a belated challenge to the original writ order through Article 142, as the main order had not been separately or timely assailed. The review dismissal was upheld because no patent factual or legal error was shown in the original finding that possession had been taken and possession on the relevant date was not established. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 Mar 2020 09:36:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286795 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits or seek a de novo examination of the writ decision. In an appeal arising only from the review order, the Court declined to let the appellants convert the proceedings into a belated challenge to the original writ order through Article 142, as the main order had not been separately or timely assailed. The review dismissal was upheld because no patent factual or legal error was shown in the original finding that possession had been taken and possession on the relevant date was not established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286795