The power of review is not akin to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, and the Tribunal has the power to revoke or modify interim orders under specific provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 151 of CPC, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 1 (3) of chapter X of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959, with the prayer for review and for recall of my order dated 10-1-1995, whereby I have dismissed the petitioner's writ petition (W. P. No. 526 of 1995 ). In my order dated 10-1-1995 I have clearly mentioned that, after passing of ex parte interim order dated 24-9-1994 by the Tribunal granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent, the petitioner had made an application for vacation or revocation or modification of ex parte order dated 24-9-1994. According to the petitioner's case, as have been pointed out at the time of hearing, the Tribunal had not passed any order on the application made by the petitioner for modification or revocation of the interim ex parte injunction order, though request had been made to the Tribunal so this court had taken the view that, when the application was pending, the writ petition was misconceived and except for the direction to be issued to the first respondent to expeditious disposal of the petitioner's application for modification of the interim order dated 24-9-1994 writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition has been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioner for vacation or modification of order dated 24-9-1994 within a period of four weeks after having heard the parties' counsels on both the sides, from the date of service of the copy of this order by this Court on the Tribunal.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner on his application for review. There is no doubt that, with reference to review jurisdiction of this Court in matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there is no specific article or provision like Article 137 of the Constitution, which is with reference to the power of review specifically conferred on the Supreme Court. It is not in doubt that, High court and Supreme Court being Courts of record and of plenary jurisdiction, inherent power or jurisdiction to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice and to avoid or rectify palpable errors of law, does vest in such Courts such as High Court and supreme Court. Anyway, various High Courts have framed specific rules in this regard. I must observe with appreciation that Sri P. R. Ramesh rendered assistance to Court and to counsel arguing review application and he brought to the notice of the Court Rule 39 of the High Court Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (for short 'the rules' ). Rule 39 of said rules reads as follows:"39. Application of High Court Rules, etc. The provisions of High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by High Court of Karnataka under karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, as far as may be to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in this rules".

( 3 ) AS per reading of these rules, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure can be made applicable to the extent there is no rule on the subject to the contrary. Article 226 by itself does not bar the power of review as has been observed by the Lords of supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others. In paragraph 8 of that judgment their lordships have observed as under:"it is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it".

( 4 ) ORDER XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for, review in certain circumstances and it would be proper on my part to make a reference to the provisions of Rule 1 in particular, of