The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court is duty-bound to correct its mistakes and prevent a miscarriage of justice when a patent error is brought to its notice.

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. It is settled position of law that the Principles of finality of the judgment of the superior Court should be maintained inasmuch as review petitions are not to be taken as a routine course. It is also equally well settled that the Court should act ex debito justitiae as may be necessary in the interest of justice or necessary to do so for the sake of justice by exercising the power of review. The Court, while exercising the power of review within the four corners of power of review, has to strike the balance between the principle of finality of judgment and requirement of the superior Court to act ex debito justitiae by exercising the power of review.

2. As early as 1941, the federal Court has discussed the principles governing the power of review in Raja Prithwi Chand v. Sukhrai and held that the Federal Court will not sit as a Court of appeal from its own decisions nor will it entertain applications to review for rehearing and also that an order once made is final. Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances, an application for review can be entertained. The indulgence by way of review is granted mainly owing to the natural desire to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort as whereby some accident, without any blame, the parry has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. From the ratio laid down in Raja Prithi Chand v. Sukhraj (supra) it is abundantly clear that review petition shall be entertained to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court as whereby some accident, without any blame. The Apex Court in Northern India Caterers (India) v. Ltd. Governor of Delhi, [1980] 2 SCR 650 held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. The Apex Court reiterated the same view in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, (1981) II LLJ 405 SC and held that review is not a routine procedure but an application for review could be entertained when there is material error manifest on the face of the earlier order resulting in miscarriage of justice.

3. In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka , the Apex Court had discussed the earlier decision of the Apex Court regarding the circumstance in which the Court exercises its power on an application for review to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Lily Thomas v.Union of India, 2000 CriLJ 2433 the Apex Court had not only discussed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in S. Nagaraj (supra) but also in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury, (supra), Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 & A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 CriLJ 1661 and held that (at p. 1662, Para 52 of AIR):

The power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law. A review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetuation shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.

4. Apex Court in Surjit Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2693 held that when a patent error is brought out to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its order or/directions.

5. As discussed above, a review petition will lie