The inherent power of the High Court should be used sparingly and only in cases of miscarriage of justice. Once a judgment is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed, except to correct clerical errors.

1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks re-hearing of the petition bearing 561-A Cr.P.C. No.65/2008 & connected MPs, which has already been dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2017 without deciding the main issue raised by the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(a) That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned on the basis of same material and evidence which was earlier considered by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed by this Court that the respondent had failed to prove that she was the daughter of the petitioner, has not been decided due to oversight. The said petition, therefore, deserves to be reheard after recalling the order dated 28.10.2017.

(b) That in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu has clearly recorded a finding that there was no iota of evidence that the respondent was the daughter of the petitioner. The said order has been confirmed by this Court on the basis of reference made by the said Court. The respondent in her application filed before the trial Court clearly pleaded that in view of the said judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, holding that she had failed to prove the paternity, she should be allowed to prove the paternity by summoning of the witnesses mentioned therein. She was allowed to lead the evidence. But subsequently, the statement was made that no further evidence would be lead. It was, therefore, vehemently argued before this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing on 22.09.2017 by the counsel for the petitioner that in these circumstances, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to record the contrary finding to that of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu on the basis of the same material.

(c) That this Hon’ble Court had recorded a finding that the proceedings could be quashed under inherent power only in order to prevent the abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court has further held that the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. could be exercised with exceptional circumstances when the Court comes to the conclusion that there was inherent power in correctness or perversity in the order. In the present case, as submitted above, the learned Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu had no jurisdiction to record a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the superior courts on the same facts. The petitioner, therefore, had raised a serious question of lack of jurisdiction supported by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(d) That due to non consideration of the aforesaid points which goes to the jurisdiction of the matter and having not been decided, the petitioner has highly been prejudiced. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be re-heard and decided afresh.

(e) That during the course of arguments, it was also pointed out that the respondent has attained majority and had solemnized the marriage on 14.11.2015. This fact was also admitted by the counsel for the respondent.

(f) That there are two types of review i.e. (1) review on merit and (2) review due to procedural lapses/mistake. The review on merit is permissible only if there is an expressed provision contained in an Act. However, in case of procedural review, the Court has inherent power to correct its error in order to do justice on the well known principle of law that acts of the Court should not prejudice any party. In the present case, since due to mistake and oversight, the main plea raised and argued by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of Court below has not been decided, the present petition is maintainable.

(g) That alternatively in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by this Court deserves to be recalled/reviewed on the aforesaid grounds.

2. In support of his contention that the High Court has inherent power to correct its own order, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decis