https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458625 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. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2026 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458625 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458625