Review jurisdiction and procedural compliance: omission of advocate's certificate cured, and overlooked binding law justified reopening the judgment.

The absence of an advocate's certificate under Rule 2, Chapter 10 of the Appellate Side Rules did not bar a review application, because the requirement was treated as directory where its purpose of ensuring responsibility for review grounds could still be achieved by curing the omission. Review was also available under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC because the earlier judgment had overlooked a binding legal position on the status of an ex-tenant in rent standardisation proceedings, which constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere mistake in law was distinguished from overlooking settled binding law. The review was therefore entertained and the matter restored for further hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of an advocate's certificate under Rule 2, Chapter 10 of the Appellate Side Rules barred the review application. (ii) Whether the earlier judgment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of an advocate's certificate under Rule 2, Chapter 10 of the Appellate Side Rules barred the review application.

Analysis: The rule required the application to contain a certificate by an advocate, but the omission was held not to be fatal. The provision was construed in the light of its purpose, namely, to ensure responsibility for the grounds of review and to prevent frivolous applications. Since the object of the rule would not be defeated by allowing the omission to be cured, the requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory.

Conclusion: The absence of the certificate did not bar the review application.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier judgment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The earlier decision had proceeded on an overlooked binding legal position concerning the status of an ex-tenant for the purpose of rent standardization proceedings. The oversight was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere mistake in law is not enough for review, but overlooking settled law of binding effect falls within the scope of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment was reviewable because it contained an error apparent on the face of the record.

Final Conclusion: The review was entertained, the prior judgment was reopened, and the matter was restored for further hearing without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement framed to secure orderly administration is directory if its purpose can still be fulfilled by curing the omission, and review lies where the court has overlooked a binding proposition of law, thereby committing an error apparent on the face of the record.

---