https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313101 A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC requires new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it cannot be used to re-argue the merits of an earlier revisional order. The High Court noted that the tenant's challenge was directed at re-agitating the finding on the landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement, which had already been treated as final and was applied against the tenant on res judicata principles. Subsequent factual contentions and alleged omissions in considering pleadings did not justify review. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on merits. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313101 A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC requires new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it cannot be used to re-argue the merits of an earlier revisional order. The High Court noted that the tenant's challenge was directed at re-agitating the finding on the landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement, which had already been treated as final and was applied against the tenant on res judicata principles. Subsequent factual contentions and alleged omissions in considering pleadings did not justify review. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313101