Court clarifies limits on reviewing orders under Section 451 CPC: authority can't correct legal errors.

The High Court, in reviewing an order under section 451 CPC related to the U.P. Sales Tax Act, held that a judicial body lacks the authority to review its decision unless explicitly granted by statute. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that the revising authority mentioned in the Act does not include the power to correct errors of law. It clarified that while a court can rectify its mistakes, it cannot review an order due to a party's error. The judgment stressed that the power of review must be expressly provided by law, rejecting the application for review as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Review of order under section 451 CPC, lack of statutory provision for review, power to correct error of law in inherent jurisdiction.

The judgment by the High Court addressed the application filed under section 451 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of an order passed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court highlighted that a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot review its order unless specifically empowered by statute, citing the precedent set in P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyuman AIR 1970 SC 1273. The court examined the provisions of the Act and concluded that the revising authority mentioned did not encompass the power to correct errors of law. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Court was deemed advisory, as seen in the comparison of sub-sections (6) and (8) before and after amendment. The Court emphasized that the use of the term "revision" instead of "reference" did not alter the nature of the jurisdiction. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the principle that a court or authority exercising advisory jurisdiction is not empowered to review its order.

The judgment discussed the argument presented by the standing counsel regarding the exercise of inherent power by the Court to correct errors of law. It was noted that while a court may correct its own mistakes, it cannot review an order due to a mistake by a party. The Court analyzed the decision in Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi [1977] 106 ITR 653 (SC) and clarified that it did not overrule the principle that a court exercising advisory jurisdiction cannot review its order. The judgment emphasized that rectification of clerical errors differs from a review based on a change in the interpretation of the law.

Moreover, the judgment delved into the legislative intent behind conferring the power of review, highlighting that if the statute does not explicitly provide for a review, it should not be invoked through inherent power. The Court examined the legislative history of relevant Acts to demonstrate that the legislature specifically included provisions for review where intended. The judgment concluded by rejecting the application for review filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax as not maintainable, emphasizing that the power of review should not be exercised when not conferred by statute.

---