Dismissing the appeal the Court held that S. 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 puts a complete bar on filing suits in any civil court against the Income-tax authority. The mandate of law remained unnoticed by the single judge of the Calcutta High Court on October 26, 1990 while relegating the parties to address in the pending civil suit at Delhi although it was dismissed much prior to the pronouncement of the judgment dated October 26, 1990. Even in the appeal, the Division Bench granted liberty to the respondents to file a fresh civil suit in respect of the subject property in Delhi and neither party had brought to the notice of the court the mandate of law as envisaged under section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that a civil suit against the Income tax Department was not maintainable under the law. The High Court took notice of this in its review jurisdiction when it arrived at the conclusion that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and consequently allowed the application for review, recalled the order dated October 19, 2012 and set aside the judgment and order dated March 31, 2006 passed in the miscellaneous application and for restoration of the writ petition to be heard on its own merits. The effect of S. 293 of the Act had been mistakenly omitted under the judgment in review. That apart, the effect of the order of the High Court on the Department’s application in the 1957 suit was open to examination in the writ proceedings as it was the defence of the Department in the reply to the review application and before the court that in the auction sale which was held in the month of August, 1964, permission of the court was not obtained. After the order was passed on the Department’s application by the single judge of the High Court in the 1957 suit, it would certainly affect the auction sale held by the Department in reference to the subject property in question. If the civil suit was not maintainable in view of section 293 of the Act and this was the purported defence of the respondents and of the Department and consequential effect of the order dated September 8, 1965, no party could be left remediless and the grievance raised before the court of law, had to be examined on its own merits. There was no error committed by the High Court in its judgment rendered in exercise of its review jurisdiction calling for interference. Decision of the Calcutta High Court affirmed. The court made it clear that its observations were only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and the writ petition was to be decided by the High Court of Calcutta on its own merits, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The cases in which the review application could be entertained are : (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason. A review will not be maintainable in the following cases: (i) repetition of old and overruled argument; (ii) minor mistakes of inconsequential import. Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. A review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. A review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.