Omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for review, and review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that the decision is not correct.

ORDER

1. The matter out of which this application arises was never before this Hon'ble Court in the present from but it arises against the Order Dated 31.01.2008.

2. This review application has been filed by the Writ Petitioner to review the Judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed, in W.P.(C) No. 5134 of 2007 whereby this Court dismissed the Writ Petitioner being devoid of merit.

3. The Learned Counsel for the review Petitioner submits that he was not able to place some decisions of the Supreme Court at the time of hearing of the writ application. As such, the aforesaid order needs further consideration.

4. Law is well settled that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground to review the earlier Judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record since Learned Counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the Court the relevant precedent (See Dokka Samuel Vs. Dr Jacob Lazarus Chelly, ).

5. No doubt, review can be maintainable on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge, or could not be produced at the time of Judgment but not on the ground that the legal authority in existence on the date of Judgment could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Also no review can be asked on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that decision is not correct. It goes without saying that the purpose of review application cannot be "rehearing" for the purpose of saying whether a different conclusion on merits could be adopted.

Considering the same, the review application is dismissed accordingly.

Final Result : Dismissed