Challenge to scheme order barred after earlier reliance on the same order and final determination of the vesting issue.

A party that relied on a drawn-up scheme order in earlier proceedings could not later reopen the matter by alleging that the order mistakenly omitted the North Mill. The Court held that the alleged mistake existed from the date of the order, yet no such plea was raised when the issue was directly in contest despite ample opportunity. Because the applicant had already proceeded on the basis of that order and the earlier adjudication had conclusively determined the underlying vesting issue, a fresh challenge to the same order was barred. The application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant could, after an earlier section 11 proceeding had been decided against it on the basis of the drawn-up scheme order, maintain a fresh application to allege that the order sanctioning the scheme contained a mistake in not specifically including the North Mill.

Analysis: The applicant had earlier asserted its entitlement on the basis of the scheme order as drawn up and, when its section 11 request was being heard, had notice that the decisive question was whether the North Mill had vested in it under that order. It did not then raise any plea that the drawn-up order was mistaken. The Court held that a party cannot first found its claim on an order and, after failing on that basis, turn around and challenge the same order as erroneous. The alleged mistake existed from the date of the order, and the applicant's omission to raise it earlier, despite having had the opportunity, meant that the right to seek correction could no longer be pressed at such a late stage. The Court also held that the earlier adjudication had conclusively determined the very issue underlying the present attempt, so the applicant could not reopen it indirectly.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: A litigant who consciously proceeds on the basis of a court order and allows an earlier decisive opportunity to pass cannot later seek to reopen the matter by alleging a mistake in that very order; the challenge was therefore barred and failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that has elected to rely on a court order in prior proceedings and failed to reserve or raise a plea of mistake when the issue was directly in contest is precluded from later challenging the order on that basis, especially where the earlier decision has conclusively settled the underlying issue.

---