( 1 ) IN the course of the winding up of the respondent bank the appellant submitted a claim for a very substantial sum of money. The official Liquidator rejected the major part of the claim and the appellant appealed to the Company Judge. The Company Judge dismissed the appeal subject to certain minor adjustments. Against the order of the Company Judge the appellant filed a special appeal which was allowed in part by a Division Bench by a judgment dated the 14th march, 1957. " the Official Liquidator filed an application for a review of that judgment, but the Bench considered itself precluded as undoubtedly it was, from entertaining the application in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mt. Abhilakhi v. Sada Nand. ILR 53 All 535: AIR 1931 all 244. The Bench however entertained a doubt as to whether Abhilakhis case ILR 53 All 535 : air 1931 All 244 (FB) has been rightly decided, and as the matter was one of considerable importance it has referred to rhis Bench two questions: first, whether a decision given by the court in a special appeal is open to review, and, secondly, whether the Court can rectify a mistake in its judgment so as to alter its decision by acting under Section 151, C. P. C.

( 2 ) A special appeal is the name given by the Rules of Court to an appeal which lies from a judgment of one Judge in the circumstances mentioned in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Her majesty dated the 17th March, 1866. These Letters Patent ceased to have effect on the 26th July, 1948, on the coming into force of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, but by Clause 7 of that Order the present High Court had conferred on it all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as was on the day preceding the coming into force of the Order exercisable by either the former High Court at Allahabad or the Chief Court in Oudh.

( 3 ) IN ILR 53 All 535: AIR 1931 All 244 (FB) which was decided in 1931, this Court held by a majority that no application lay for the review of a judgment passed by a Bench in the exercise of its appellate powers under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent; and the present reference raises the question whether that case was rightly decided.

( 4 ) PROVISION for the review of a judgment is to be found in Section 114 and Order 47, C. P. C. and the short question is whether those provisions have any application to a judgment passed in a special appeal. Section 117 of the Code provides that, save as provided in Part IX or Part X of the Code or in the rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Code shall apply to all High courts. It is common ground that the only provision in Part IX or Part X or in the rules which restricts the application of the Code to appellate proceedings in a High Court is Order 49, Rule 3 which provides that Order 41, Rule 35 (relating to the date and contents of a decree) shall not apply. Subject to this exception there is no doubt Section 117, which is quite general in its terms, applied the provision of the Code to all proceedings taken by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

( 5 ) SECTION 114, so far as it is relevant, provides that, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the rules,

"any person considering himself aggrieved (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code. . . . . may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. "

On a plain reading of this section it would appear that the High Court may (subject to the conditions and limitations to be found in Order 47) review its judgment in all cases except where an appeal from a decree or order founded upon that judgment is allowed under the Code and has been preferred. It is common ground that no appeal has been p