Mistake apparent from record must be self-evident; rectification fails where the point was never urged earlier.

Rectification under section 35 is confined to errors that are plain and self-evident from the record; an error requiring elaborate argument is not a mistake apparent from the record. A point not urged before the Tribunal cannot later be recast as an apparent error in the order. On the facts noted, the applicant had repeated opportunities to present his case, and the rectification application did not attack the Tribunal's disposal of the issues actually argued. The alleged error therefore fell outside the scope of rectification and the application was not maintainable on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application could succeed on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's earlier decision.

Analysis: Rectification under section 35 lies only where the alleged error is plain and self-evident from the record. An error that can be established only after elaborate argument is not a mistake apparent from the record. The application did not challenge the Tribunal's disposal of the only points argued earlier, and the record showed that the applicant had been given repeated opportunities to present his case. A point not urged before the Tribunal could not later be treated as an apparent mistake in the order.

Conclusion: The alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the rectification application was not maintainable on that basis.

---