Review jurisdiction cannot rely on a later Supreme Court ruling; belated applications without adequate explanation are not maintainable.

Review under the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to an error apparent or other mistake existing when the judgment was delivered, so a later Supreme Court decision does not by itself justify review. The power to correct accidental slips or omissions is distinct and was not engaged here because the relief sought went beyond that limited correction. The application was also belated, with no sufficient explanation for the delay after the later decision became known, so the review application was held not maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for review of an earlier order was maintainable on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court decision and the delay in moving the application.

Analysis: Review under the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to an error or mistake existing at the time the judgment was delivered. A later judicial pronouncement or alteration of law is not a ground for review. The court also distinguished the power to correct accidental slips or omissions from the present case, since the relief sought was not of that character. The application was further found to be belated, with no sufficient explanation for the steps taken after the subsequent decision became known.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---