1. This review application is filed by the applicant in Civil revision Application No.110 of 2001.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under - The applicant/plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the Non-applicants/defendants for collection of Tendu leaves. In pursuance of the same, the applicant had deposited Rs.22,20,000/- with the non-applicants/defendants. The non-applicants/defendants were to issue a transit pass for collection of Tendu leaves but failed to do it till 18/9/1993. Even though the installments were paid, the pass was not issued. Ultimately, the transit pass was issued for beat No.23, 24 and others. Due to inordinate delay in issuing the pass, the applicants/plaintiffs suffered damages. The applicants sought to recover these damages by filing civil suit for recovery of Rs.71,44,984/-.

3. In this suit, the non-applicants had put-in their appearance and had filed the written statement on 5/12/1997 vide Exh.16. The learned Civil Judge framed issues on 2/1/1998. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed and plea of existence of arbitration agreement was raised. The plea as regards maintenability of the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Maharashtra Minor Forest Produce Act, was also raised. In view of this, an issue was framed as to whether the suit is tenable in Law. The issue was answered in the affirmative and suit was held to be tenable. This order was passed on 21/11/2000. On the same day, the learned judge of the trial court passed an order referring the dispute to the Arbitration without there being any application. This order was challenged in this court by way of revision in Civil Revision Application No.110 of 2001. This court, after having heard the respective parties, dismissed the revision. Hence, this review.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs contends that the order as passed by this court is not correct, since the statutory provisions were totally ignored. He submits that the order would show that the submissions, as were made before the court, were not even dealt with, which resulted into miscarriage of justice. Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the non-applicants/ defendants, on the other hand, submitted that this cannot be a ground for the review. Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiff's, contention is that non-consideration of the arguments and non-appreciation of the facts on record should be treated as mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Apex court in (2000)1 SCC 666 (M.M.Thomas .vs. State of Kerala) has made the following observations –

“14. The High court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the record. As court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra a nine-Judge Bench of this court has recognised the aforesaid superior status of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a court of record. 17. If such power of correcting its own record is denied to the High Court, when it notices the apparent error its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down. Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record.?

5. In yet another case reported in 2003(12)