1968 (7) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ewed) is a good ground for review. For, it seems to me that it would be the discovery of a new and important matter and, in any case, an error apparent on the face of the record, within the meaning of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code. To adopt the language of the Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of AP 1964 S.C. 1372 at 1377 this would be a case where, without any elaborate argument, one could point to an error regarding which there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained. Therefore, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. That the phrase, "error apparent on the face of the record" is not limited to errors of fact but extends to errors of law as well is well-settled and, I th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us with the phrase, "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" you cannot get more from a record than what appears on its face. And, as we have seen, the Supreme Court has held that a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious is a "mistake apparent from the record." It seems to me to make no difference whether the binding authority demonstrating the error was a decision rendered before, or one rendered after the decision in which the error occurred, for, a judicial decision only declares the law and does not make or change it. That, whether it be a fiction or not, is, at any rate, the theory on which the courts act. And where, as in this case, it is a question of construing a statute that is indisputably the truth. For, sure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision. The weighty reasons given in Murari Rao v. Balavanth Dikshit AIR 1924 Madras 98 in favour of a review apply equally whether the binding decision demonstrating the error was rendered before or after the erroneous decision, and, if, as the Supreme Court has held, a sebsequent legislation rendering a decision erroneous is a good ground for review, I fail to see why a subsequent binding decision declaring a decision to be erroneous should not be a good ground. If it is borne in mind that a judicial decision only declares and does not make or change the law, although it might correct previous erroneous views of the law, a review on the basis of a subsequent binding authority would not be a review of a decree which, when it was made,....