Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President — By this application, the petitioner seeks to review the order passed by this Commission on 5.6.1997 in Appeal No. 378 of 1993, whereby the appeal was accepted and the complaint of the complainant dismissed.

2. At the out-set, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that review is not maintainable unless it has sanction of law. Since, review is not provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the review is not maintainable.

3. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 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 is no doubt a power bestowed with definitive limits to exercise the power of review.

4. We have considered the submissions raised by both the parties and we are of the opinion that power of review must be conferred by a law and in the absence of it such power cannot be exercised by the Court. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down "that it is well settled that the power to review is not an