The judgment established that an error of law for the purpose of review must relate to a well-settled legal proposition beyond controversy and must be apparent on the face of the record.

1. These are applications for the review of the judgment in T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar v. Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 571 delivered by Srinivasa Ayyangar and Ananthakrishna Ayyar. JJ., who have since ceased to be Judges of this High Court. The Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter refer-red to as the company) which was respondent in the second appeals is petitioner and the ground on which review is applied for is that the decision of both the learned Judges is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, i.e., in the judgments themselves within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C.

2. In Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 112, their Lordships of the Privy Council have held that Rule 1, Order 47 must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which a review of a decree or order is permitted and that a Court hearing an application for the review of a decree has no jurisdiction to order review merely because it is of opinion that a different conclusion of law should have been arrived at.

3. The application for review can be entertained only on the ground of " an error of law apparent on the face of the record." As to the meaning of that expression, we were referred by the learned Counsel for the company to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Champey Bhara & Co. v. Jeevraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 66, in which a similar question was raised with reference to an award sought to be set aside under Clause 14 (c), Schedule 2, Civil P.C., the terms of which are:

where an objection to the legality of the award is apparent upon the face of it.

4. Their Lordships observe that an error in law on the face of the award means...that you can find in the award or document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance, a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous. It does not mean that if in a narrative a reference is made to a contention of one party that opens the door to seeing first what that contention is and then going to the contract on which the parties rights depend to see if that contention is sound.

5. An award of an arbitrator cannot be questioned on the ground that it is erroneous in law; it can be questioned only if such an error is " apparent on the face of the record " as explained by their Lordships in Champey Bhara & Co. v. Jeevraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 66. In our opinion the expressions in Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C., " error apparent on the face of it" must receive the same construction. We may add that in view of their Lordships decision in Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 112., already referred to, an error of law to be apparent on the face of it must relate to some proposition of law which is well settled and beyond controversy so far as the Court which delivered the judgment is concerned, as for instance in Murarirao v. Balwant Dikshit A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 98, and on which the (judgment rests and not merely to a question of law which is debatable and may be shown to be erroneous.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the basis of the judgment of the learned Judges is a legal proposition which on the face of it is erroneous and that therefore we ought to entertain the review petition.

7. The respondents learned Counsel on the other hand contends that assuming there was an error of law in the decision of the case, the error is not one apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of that expression as stated in the first portion of the passage from their Lordships judgment quoted above, but it is only an error of the kind referred to by their Lordships in the latter part of the above passage, which is no ground for granting a review.

8. The question we have to determine is whether the petitioner has made out that the judgment sought to be reviewed rest