(1.) These are applications for the review of the judgment in T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar V/s. Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. 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/s. 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/s. 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.