The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discussion of the power of the court to review its order under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, emphasizing that an application for review may be necessitated by invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' due to a misconception of fact or law by the Court or even an advocate.

( 1 ) THE applicant has, through his Power of Attorney, made this application with a prayer to review and/or recall the judgement and order dated 3rd November, 2006 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4351 of 1990, and pending admission and hearing, restrain the respondents from taking possession of the property of Natwar Palace Complex and stay further proceedings of Land Ceiling Case No. 25 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE short order sought to be reviewed reads as under:

"after arguing the matter at some length, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the issues sought to be raised and the challenges sought to be levelled in the petition or by way of proposed amendment which was rejected were squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 1983 in the case of Khachar Godabhai Pithubhai and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 589, and no ground was made out to take a different view. Therefore, the petition was required to be dismissed in terms of the ratio of the aforesaid judgement. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, Rule is discharged and interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs. "

( 3 ) IT is stated in the application and canvassed by learned Advocate, Shri H. P. Raval, appearing for the applicant, that the concession was made by learned Advocate, Mr. Upadhyay, who appeared for learned Senior Advocate, Mr. N. D. Nanavati in the original petition, on the basis of a misconception about the other points, which were urged in the main petition. It had escaped the notice of the applicant s Advocate that the other issues had also arisen in the above petition and, under the misconception of law, they were conceded to have been covered by the judgement, as aforesaid. In paragraph 9 of the application, it is averred on oath that:

"none of the above-stated issues though arising and urged in the said petition in his favour can be said to be covered by the above-referred judgment of a Division

Bench of this Hon ble Court referred to in the order of this Hon ble Court dated 3. 11. 06. While tendering unconditional apology to this Hon ble Court, the applicant submits that it is under the misconception that the concession by Shri Upadhyay for the applicant has been recorded that the issues/challenges sought to be raised as referred in the petition or by way of the proposed amendment, which was rejected, were squarely covered by a Division Bench decision referred to in the order of this Hon ble Court disposing of the present petition. "

It is further stated in paragraph-11 that:

"affidavit in support of this application by the applicant is filed. In addition thereto, affidavit of learned advocate Shri Upadhyay that it was under his own misunderstanding/misconception that the concession was tendered to this Hon ble Court, is also filed separately. "

It is stated in the affidavit of the learned Advocate, Shri Chitrajit Bharatbhai Upadhyay that:

"i was under the bona fide impression and mistaken belief that all points and challenges raised in the writ petition were covered by the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 1983 and therefore, I had conceded that the issues raised and urged in the present petition as well as proposed amendment which was rejected are covered by the said judgment. However, I did not realize that there are other factual and legal contentions which are not at all covered by the judgment and it was under my misconception that I tendered a concession that these issues are covered. "

( 4 ) AGAINST the above backdrop of facts, averments and statements on record, the learned Advocate, Mr. H. P. Raval, submitted that bona fide misconception of the learned Advocate making a concession before the Court should be considered sufficient ground to allow the application for review and the party may not be made to suffer on account of the misunderstanding or misconception of his learned Counsel. Mr. R