Later overruling judgment does not by itself justify rectification of an earlier tribunal order.

A later judgment overruling the precedent applied in an earlier tribunal order does not, by itself, render that earlier order erroneous for rectification purposes. The tribunal held that the original observation was correct on the law as it stood when made, and a subsequent change in the legal position could not retrospectively create an apparent mistake in the earlier order. On that basis, the rectification application was held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a rectification application could be allowed on the ground that a later judgment of a higher court had reversed the decision relied upon in the original tribunal order, thereby making that order erroneous.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the original observation was correct when made on the law then understood to be settled. A later reversal of the precedent relied upon does not retrospectively create an error in the earlier order. The application for rectification was therefore not maintainable on that basis.

Conclusion: The rectification application was rejected and dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later judgment overruling the precedent applied in an earlier order does not, by itself, constitute an apparent mistake warranting rectification of that order.

---