Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the
materials available on record, it appears that for the first time the document in Annexure-1 h
as been incorporated in the review petition. The apex Court in Gulab Ajwani and others v. Smt.
Saraswati Bai and others, AIR 1978 SC 326 and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Nari
chania and others, 2010(II) CLR (SC) 737 has clearly laid down that review means a judicial re
-examination of the case in certain specified and prescribed circumstances. The power of revie
w is not inherent in a Court or Tribunal. It is a creature of the statute. A Court or Tribunal
cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by statute. The Courts having
general jurisdiction have no inherent power under Section 151, CPC to review its own order. Th
e Explanation to Section 141, CPC clearly lays down that the expression proceedings includes p
roceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Consti
tution. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1, CPC ips
o facto may not apply to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, but its principle
will apply. Therefore, the scope of review being very limited in nature, if the principle, wh
ich is applicable to mean (1) if the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of
the record in the sense that it is evident on a mere looking at the record without any long-dr
awn process of reasoning, a review application is maintainable; (2) if there is a serious irre
gularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review a
pplication can be entertained and (3) if a mistake is committed by an erroneous assumption of
a fact which if allowed to stand, cause miscarriage of justice, then also an application for r
eview can be entertained. The scope of review has been elaborately considered by the apex Cour
t in Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 1909, Aribam Tuleshwa
r Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 and S.Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 S
upp.(4) SCC 595.
