Post-judgment amendment for accidental omission was upheld where the claim was already contemplated and natural justice was not breached.

An appellate tribunal may permit correction of an original application after disposal where the amendment merely remedies an accidental omission and reflects a claim already contemplated in the pleadings and supporting material. The power to make such post-judgment correction was treated as arising from provisions dealing with accidental slips, omissions and clerical errors, read with the court's inherent power, but not as authority to introduce a wholly new claim. On the record, no request for time to file a reply before the tribunal was shown, and the petitioners' legal objection was considered; no breach of natural justice was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could permit amendment of the original application after disposal of the proceedings, and whether the petitioners were denied an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The pleadings and supporting documents showed that the claim for interest with quarterly rest was already contemplated, so the amendment was treated as a correction of an omission rather than introduction of a new claim. The power to permit such correction after judgment was recognised as flowing from the provisions enabling correction of accidental slips, omissions, and clerical errors, together with the court's inherent power, but not for adding a matter never contemplated during the proceedings. The record also did not show any request by the petitioners for time to file a reply before the Appellate Tribunal, and the hearing disclosed that their legal objection was in fact considered.

Conclusion: The amendment was validly allowed and no breach of natural justice was made out.

---