Review jurisdiction cannot be used for rehearing absent an apparent error or new evidence.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 4 February 2026 in T.A. No. 38/2024.

The Tribunal considered the Review Application and the material on record, but the judgment does not detail the specific grounds advanced by the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record, or another recognised ground, warranting review of the order dated 4 February 2026.

2. Whether the grounds advanced sought impermissibly to reopen the merits and obtain a rehearing of the matter.

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to recognised grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Review is not an appeal in disguise: it cannot be used for a fresh hearing, reappreciation of evidence, or substitution of one view for another. The Tribunal relied on Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596; Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L) 160; Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. v. Motilal (Dead) through LRs., (2009) 14 SCC 663; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant had identified neither an apparent error in the order under review nor new and important matter or evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

It characterised the grounds as seeking reappreciation of material already considered and reconsideration of the Tribunal’s findings; that would amount to a rehearing, which falls outside review jurisdiction. Dissatisfaction with the outcome or the possibility of another view was insufficient to justify review.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.