Court denies application to correct final order, emphasizing limited power to rectify mistakes.

The Bench rejected the application for correction of the final order despite acknowledging the importance of rectifying court mistakes to prevent unjust consequences. The respondent's request to align the final order with the initial pronouncement of dismissal was denied, emphasizing the Tribunal's limited power to rectify only mistakes apparent from the record. The Bench clarified that without specific review powers, it could not review its own order solely based on discrepancies highlighted by the respondent's counsel, maintaining the final order's status as recorded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in final order leading to confusion.
2. Request for correction of final order.
3. Application of settled law regarding court mistakes.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The respondent's counsel raised concerns about a discrepancy in the final order, where the appeal of Revenue was recorded as allowed despite being pronounced as dismissed in open court. The counsel pointed out that the order sheet showed alterations with initial dismissal being cut and replaced with an allowed status, causing distress to the client due to the conflicting results.

Issue 2: The respondent's counsel requested the correction of the final order to reflect the actual pronouncement of dismissal in the open court. He argued that the abbreviation "DOF" against the recorded dismissal indicated that a detailed order was pending, emphasizing that the final order should align with the initial pronouncement to avoid injustice to the respondent.

Issue 3: Citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case, the respondent's counsel highlighted the principle that no one should suffer due to a court's mistake. He urged the court to rectify the order to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the need to uphold fairness and prevent unjust consequences resulting from errors made by the court.

The Revenue contended that the order passed was not reversible by the Bench, indicating their stance on the matter.

In its decision, the Bench acknowledged the importance of preventing individuals from bearing the brunt of court mistakes. However, it clarified its limitations, stating that the Tribunal's power extends to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record but does not include the authority to review its own order without specific review powers. Consequently, in the absence of a rectifiable mistake evident from the record, the application for correction was rejected, maintaining the final order's status as recorded despite the discrepancies highlighted by the respondent's counsel.

---