J U D G M E N T

G.P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. An Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) was preferred by the Petitioner (herein) on 16.01.2009 challenging the award dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Arbitrator. The Objection Petition came to be dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by an order dated 02.04.2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2009 the Appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court 18.03.2010. By an order dated 14.05.2010 the Appellant was permitted to withdraw the SLP with liberty to seek appropriate remedy available under law against the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act on 6th August, 2010. Along with the aforesaid Appeal an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred for condonation of delay of 433 days in filing the Appeal. The application for condonation of delay and consequently, the Appeal was dismissed by the order dated 24.12.2012 holding that the Appellant’s conduct showed that there was gross negligence, inaction and want of bonafides.

3. The Appellant seeks review of the order dated 24.12.2012 dismissing the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of record, in as much as although the Appellant pleaded that there was a delay of 433 days in filing the Appeal; in fact there was no such delay in view of the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the Supreme Court. Order dated 14.05.2010 is extracted hereunder:-

“…………Delay condoned.

Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Special Leave Petition so that the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdraw….”

4. It is urged by Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that in the impugned judgment (dated 24.12.2012) it has been observed that the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the Supreme Court was not placed on record, although the same was very much on record at page 26 of the paper book. It is pleaded that on account of inadvertence, the same was not brought to the notice of the Court. Thus, it is contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the order dated 24.12.2010 is liable to the reviewed and recalled.

5. As stated earlier, the SLP against the order dated 02.04.2009 was filed before the Supreme Court only on 18.03.2010 i.e. after more than 11 months of passing of the order. It is true that the Supreme Court condoned the delay but that was only for filing the SLP. The Appellant can rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the time during which he had been prosecuting with ‘due diligence’ another civil proceeding in the Supreme Court, against the order dated 02.04.2009. We would not go into the question whether there was due diligence or there was good faith in prosecuting the SLP before the Supreme Court. What we are concerned here is whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record.

6. The power of review can be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be claimed or asked for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for a correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Where without any elaborate