Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for review applicant, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel nominated for assistance to the Court and perused the record.

2. This application seeking review/recall of our judgment dated 25.5.2015, has come up at the instance of contemnor on the ground that criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him were barred by limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") and further that direction given by this Court restraining him from entering premises of Civil Court/District Judgeship, Kannauj for a period of three months is beyond jurisdiction since no such punishment is provided under Section 12 of Act, 1971 and is also contrary to law laid down in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1998 (4) SCC 409.

3. It is admitted that aforesaid two issues were not raised earlier but that it is sought to be explained that this was due to inadvertence. The learned counsel urged that these issues now can be raised by means of present application particularly in view of order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.851 of 2015 dismissing the aforesaid appeal.

4. The first obstruction before contemnor is lack of power of review under Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India. The power of review is not inherent unless conferred by statute. Even when conferred, the power of review has to be exercised in a very limited sphere i.e. to prevent travesty of justice. So far as power of recall is concerned, it has been held time and again, when there is no power of recall under the statute, a Court may exercise inherent power of recall of its order if the order in question is in violation of principles of natural justice or has been passed on account of fraud or misrepresentation of the party/parties.

5. In Surendra Mohan Arora Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Ors., JT 2014 (5) SC 416, dealing with the question of inherent power of review, the Court said :

"It is trite law that unless the power of review is specifically conferred by the statute, there cannot be any inherent power of review."

6. In the context of power of this Court under Article 226, it has been observed that nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising power of judicial review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave palpable errors committed by it. (See Shivdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1909; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors. 1979(4) SCC 389). It is evident that in aforesaid cases, the Court was considering power of review of orders of subordinate Courts under Article 226 i.e. 'power of judicial review' and not the 'power of review' of its own order.

7. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq Vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others, 2014 (9) SCC 737, the Court in para 70 has said :

"It is a settled position of law that the Courts of limited jurisdiction don't have any inherent power of review."

8. It is further said that even where power of review is exercised it is within the ambit of provision permitting such power.

9. Admittedly, in the present case, none of the aforesaid contingency exist. After long drawn argument advanced on behalf of contemnor through his counsel, Sri Anjani Kumar Dubey, who appeared earlier, the criminal contempt application was decided by a detailed judgment dealing with all the arguments raised by him. Therefore, there is no question of complaining that contemnor-applicant was not afforded opportunity of hearing and judgment has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. Secondly, issue of fraud and misrepresentation is not attracted at all. On the contrary, contemnor-applicant admits that whatever arguments were raised, have already been considered and decided but the two argument