As per case facts, A.R.Shridharan, a party to one of the original writ petitions, sought review of the common order. He contended that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited was seeking patta ... for lands it was not entitled to, including a sub-way, and that compensation was wrongly obtained by them. He also challenged the original finding that his claims were based on fraudulent documents, arguing that criminal proceedings were still pending. The question arose whether the grounds presented by the review applicants satisfied the strict criteria for review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically if there was an error apparent on the face of the record or new important evidence, as opposed to merely seeking a re-evaluation akin to an appeal. Finally, the High Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited and not an appellate power for re-hearing merits. It found that the arguments advanced in these applications either sought a re-evaluation of previously settled facts and findings, raised new disputes of title requiring detailed reasoning, or failed to demonstrate an error immediately apparent on the record or new undiscoverable evidence. The applicant had also pursued legal remedies up to the Supreme Court. Consequently, this review application was dismissed, as it fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction.