“8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so : Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, para 20 : AIR 1965 SC 845 : (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948] . For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment : G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta [G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 279 : (1971) 3 SCR 748, 750] . The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice : O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi [O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 3 SCC 5 : (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27] . Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order XL Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility” : Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib [Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674] .
