Review for error apparent allowed where binding limitation law under Article 137 was overlooked in an arbitration application.

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable where an error apparent on the face of the record is shown. The High Court held that the earlier revisional order had failed to notice binding Supreme Court law that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications made to a civil court under any Act, including an application under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. That omission affected the limitation issue and constituted a manifest error, so the review was maintainable and the prior revisional order was rightly recalled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier revisional order dismissing the State's revision was liable to be reviewed on the ground that it had overlooked the binding law on the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to an application under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act.

Analysis: Review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable where a manifest mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is shown. The earlier revision had proceeded on the footing that Article 137 did not apply to the contractor's application under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, although the Supreme Court had already laid down that Article 137 extends to applications made to a civil court under any Act. The omission to notice and apply that binding pronouncement while deciding the question of limitation amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the prior revisional order was rightly recalled.

---