1. The amplitude of the inherent power of the High Court to rehear an appeal or revision disposed of and review the judgment is required to be examined in this case.

2. In Padmachandran v. Radhakrishnan, 1984 K.L.T. 416 this court held:

"For the purpose of securing the ends of justice if interference by the High Court is necessary, nothing said in any other provision will limit or affect the exercise of that inherent power. No doubt the High Court should exercise that power only very sparingly. There is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The limitation in respect of the inherent power is self-restraint, nothing more."

In this view, the court allowed review of an earlier order dismissing a Criminal Revision Petition for default. A learned single judge of this Court felt that this decision required reconsideration in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander, A. I. R.1979 S. C. 87. The Supreme Court said:

"Once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional juris