Rectification cannot be used as a disguised review when no obvious mistake appears from the record.

Rectification under the Tribunal's miscellaneous jurisdiction is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or seek a disguised review of an earlier appellate order. The alleged non-production or non-examination of a diary did not disclose a self-evident error, because the grievance required a fresh merits assessment rather than correction of an obvious record-based mistake. No mistake apparent from the record was found, so the request to recall the earlier order was rejected and the prior appellate order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier appellate order contained a mistake apparent from the record warranting recall or rectification.

Analysis: The matter turned on whether non-production or non-examination of the diary before the Tribunal established an obvious and patent error in the earlier order. The third member held that a mistake apparent from the record must be self-evident and cannot be established by a long process of reasoning or by reappreciating the evidence. It was held unnecessary, in the rectification proceeding, to decide definitively whether the diary had been produced, because the earlier order had already proceeded on the material available and the grievance essentially sought a rehearing on merits. Such a challenge was treated as an attempt to review the Tribunal's earlier decision, a power not available under the rectification provision.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was found, and the request to recall the earlier order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application failed, and the Tribunal's earlier appellate order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is permissible only for an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record, not for a matter requiring reappreciation of evidence or a disguised review of the earlier order.

---