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

The applicant, identified in the order as J&K SSB, sought review of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 23 September 2025 in T.A. No. 61/7108/2021.

The Tribunal considered whether the grounds raised satisfied the limited requirements for review, including an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter or evidence.

1. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter or evidence, warranting review of the judgment dated 23 September 2025

2. Whether the grounds raised sought an impermissible rehearing or re-appreciation of the matter rather than correction of a ground cognizable in review

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to recognized 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 and does not permit a fresh hearing or substitution of one view for another. The Tribunal relied on Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596; Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160; Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. v. Motilal (Dead) through LRs., (2009) 14 SCC 663; and Lily Thomas and others v. Union of India and others (citation not supplied), for these principles.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant had identified neither an apparent error in the record nor new and important evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing.

It considered the grounds to be an attempt to re-appreciate material already considered and to reconsider the findings on merits—an exercise 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.