Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V.K. Shukla, Somanadri Goud Katam, Nidhi Ram Sharma, Ganesh Bhardwaj, V.C. Shukla, Sirajuddin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Gaichangpou Gangmei, Advocate

The legal document emphasizes the limited scope and strict criteria for the exercise of review jurisdiction. It clarifies that recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible, unless the party can demonstrate the discovery of new and important evidence that was not available earlier despite due diligence (!) (!) (!) . The review process is confined to correcting errors that are manifest on the face of the record, rather than reappreciating evidence or substituting the view taken in the original decision (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The document underscores that errors which require detailed reasoning or involve mere disagreements with the merits of the case do not qualify as errors apparent on the record (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It highlights that the power of review is not an inherent power but is conferred by law, and it must be exercised within the boundaries of specific legal provisions, primarily Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the importance of exercising due diligence before passing a judgment is stressed, as the discovery of new evidence after the order was made must be relevant and of such a nature that it could have altered the outcome had it been available earlier (!) (!) . The document also notes that a review cannot be used as an avenue to reargue points already considered and rejected, nor to correct errors that are not self-evident or require extensive reasoning to identify (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the principles outlined prohibit the filing of successive review petitions on the same grounds, especially when no new evidence has been discovered and the alleged errors are not apparent on the record. The review process is a mechanism for correcting only clear and manifest errors, not for redeciding issues or rehashing arguments already settled (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .