TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (1) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hereafter) on July 27, 1973 against the State of Rajasthan. The State of Rajasthan resisted the application on various grounds by filing a reply. The learned District Judge framed seven issues inclusive of the relief Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are as under: "(3) Whether the petitioner has waived his right to refer the matter to arbitration as alleged in para 11 of the reply and if so, what is its effect? (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in paras 13 and 14 of the reply? (6) Whether the petitioner is entitled under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act to get an arbitrator appointed?" The learned District Judge, Shri Ganga-nagar, by his order dated May 30, 1974 held that the non-applicant (Contractor) is entitl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntractor under Section 8(2) of the Act was time-barred inasmuch as Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and that the decisions relied on by this Court while deciding issue No. 4 could not be availed of as the decisions in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1969 SC 1335 and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Illippadical Parvathi Amma, AIR 1974 Ker 202 were overruled. 4. A notice was ordered to be issued to the non-applicant (contractor) on September 9, 1978. Despite service, nobody has appeared nn behalf of the non-applicant. 5. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Balia, Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the applicant. 6. In Kerala State Electricity Board's case, (AIR 1977 SC 282), it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... P. C.: "Rule 1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved . -- (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court. Whether the error occurred by reason of the counsel's mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the Court was not a circumstance which could affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to review its decision. We have no doubt that the error was apparent on the face of the record and in our opinion the question as to how the error occurred is not relevant to this enquiry. A mere look at the trial Court's decision indicates the error apart from any thing else." 9. In Jairam v. Gopiram 1854 Raj LW 148, was held: "A review of the case law clearly leads as to the conclusion that where the mistake or error of law is not merely one in the deposition of law relevant to a case but is a more radi....