Later binding authority may justify review when it reveals an obvious error of law in the earlier order.

A later binding judicial decision that authoritatively states the law differently may expose an obvious error of law in an earlier order and justify review as an error apparent on the face of the record. The reasoning treats a judicial decision as declaring, rather than changing, the law, so a subsequent binding construction can show that the earlier view was legally incorrect. The concept of error apparent extends to clear and glaring mistakes of law, and the same principle applies under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. On that basis, review was found maintainable and the earlier decision was directed to be reheard.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent binding authority taking a different view of the law constitutes a good ground for review on the basis of error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: A subsequent authoritative decision declaring the law differently was treated as sufficient to reveal an obvious legal error in the earlier order. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that a judicial decision declares the law and does not make or change it, so a later binding construction of the same law may show that the earlier view was erroneous. The Court also treated the phrase "error apparent on the face of the record" as extending to glaring and obvious mistakes of law, and applied the same principle underlying review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. References were made to the settled understanding of "mistake apparent from the record" and to the statutory recognition of the concept in the cited provisions.

Conclusion: Yes. A subsequent binding authority taking a different view of the law can furnish a valid ground for review as an error apparent on the face of the record.

Final Conclusion: The review application was accepted, and the earlier erroneous decision was directed to be reheard.

Ratio Decidendi: A later binding judicial decision that authoritatively declares the law differently may expose an obvious error of law in an earlier order and thereby justify review as an error apparent on the face of the record.

---