8.

In support of his argument, placed reliance upon a judgement given by Honble Apex Court in the
case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Rajendra Singh and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 581.
Relevant portion of the judgement is quoted hereinbelow:

"Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the
newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation.
No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the
order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very
basis of the claim."

3. The word "recall" has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam
Raj Narain Dubey v. Union of India & Others,1998 16 LCD 36 and this Court has defined as under:

"Prayer for Recall of a order can be made if the applicant shows that there was a mistake of the
Court while passing its order. While making a prayer for restoration the applicant must show the
sufficiency of cause of his default and the Court may exercise its discretion in accepting that cause."

The court held that there was a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterized as vitiated by an “error apparent”, and a review was
by no means an appeal in disguise. – [Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. Government of
Andhra Pradesh (1964) 5 SCR 197 (SC)]

OTHER SUFFICIENT REASONS

The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ in Order XLVII Rule 1of the C.P.C. has been
given an expanded meaning, and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true
state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. The
court has emphasized that the basic fundamental of the administration of justice is that no
man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. Ex Debito Justitiate , the court must
do justice to him. If a man has been wronged, so long as it lies within the human machinery
of administration of justice, the wrong must be remedied. Some of the situations where the
court may exercise such a power are:-

1. Violation of a fundamental right

2. Violation of the principles of natural justice

3. Mistake of the court

4. Judgement was obtained by fraud

5. The court made the earlier order without jurisdiction

It is now well settled that the words "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1, Civil
Procedure Code, should be interpreted as amounting to a reason sufficient on grounds, at
least analogous to those specified immediately previously. It is loosely said that this means
that the sufficient reason must be ejusdem generis to the reasons previously stated. The
words "analogous reason" are however wider and mean a reason having resemblance or
similar in certain circumstances to the reasons previously stated. Thus, an excusable failure
to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant material is covered by the terms of Order 47,
rule, 1 Civil Procedure Code. The mistake of the counsel would be a sufficient ground for
granting review as "any other sufficient cause. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji
Cricket Club 19, wherein it has been held that the words ‘sufficient reasons’ in Order 47, rule
1, Civil Procedure Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law or by a
court or even by an advocate and an application of review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit which means an act of court shall
prejudice no man. The reason behind this law is that law has to bend before justice. 19 AIR
2005 SC 592 REVIEW JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: ARTICLE 137 9 |
P a g e Reference has been made to decision of the Supreme Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
A.J. Thomas 20Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 21, wherein it has been observed that
if the court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the
earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did
not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the
court from rectifying the error.

9. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 (L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India) considered the power of judicial  review  available against the
Administrative Tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court held that the  Tribunals  will continue to act like
Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. The
litigants therefore cannot approach the High Court even in cases where they question the vires of the
statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is
challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned. In effect, the  Tribunals  are
to be approached first by all litigants and against the decision of
the  Tribunals,  writ  petition  can  be  filed  before the High Court and the said  writ  petitions are to be
heard only by the Division Bench of the High Court and thereafter only SLP  can  be  filed  before the
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Sai Babu Vs. Director General of Fire Services [ 2006 (5)
SLR 458], also taking into consideration K. Ajit Babu Vs. UOI [ 1997 (4) SLR 775 (SC)], relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicants, observed as under: an earlier decision of the Tribunal, which
has attained finality, cannot be sought to be reopened by a third party to the proceedings by filing an
application under section 19 of the administrative  tribunals  act. While an administrative order or a
statutory provision, made in compliance with the law laid down by the Tribunal,  can  be challenged
by way of an application under section 19 of the administrative  tribunals  act, the decision of the
Tribunal and the relief granted therein cannot be overturned by invoking the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal under section 19 of the administrative  tribunals  act and  can  only be questioned before the
High Court under article 226 of the constitution of india.  While the earlier decision of the
Tribunal  can  be set at naught either by way of a  review  petition  filed  before the Tribunal under
section 22 of the administrative  tribunals  act or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal cannot overrule the decision and the relief granted to a
party to the proceedings, by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal.