Rectification power confined to patent errors, not merits review, so repeat valuation objections were not maintainable.

Rectification under Section 129B(2) is confined to correcting patent mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a review or revision to reopen findings, reargue the merits, or reassess evidence. The objections on valuation, discount, accessories, and promissory estoppel had already been examined in the original order and earlier rectification proceedings. As they required fresh consideration of the merits rather than correction of an obvious error, no mistake apparent from the record was shown and the rectification applications were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications for rectification disclosed any mistake apparent from the record so as to permit amendment of the earlier order.

Analysis: The rectification power under Section 129B(2) is limited to correcting patent errors apparent on the face of the record. It is not a power of review or revision, and cannot be used to reopen findings, reargue the merits, or seek reassessment of evidence. The grounds urged by the applicants concerned the substantive valuation dispute, the claimed discount, accessories, and promissory estoppel, all of which had already been considered in the original order and in earlier rectification proceedings. Those objections required debate and fresh examination of the merits, which fell outside the scope of rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the rectification applications were not maintainable.

---