Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.S. Diwekar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, and learned standing counsel.
(2.) This review application under Chapter -V, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been preferred pointing out that on account of the mistake of the counsel, it could not be placed before the Court that the District Inspector of Schools was also a party in the civil suit filed by the Petitioner, reference whereof has been made in the judgment dated 20.1.2006.
(3.) Learned Counsel contends that even though the conclusion drawn by the Court may be the same but the error is apparent on the face of record and the same can be corrected in view of the law laid down by the Federal Court in the decision of Mst. Jamna Kuer v/s. Lal Bahadur and Ors., AIR 1950 FC 131. Paragraph No. 8 is quoted below: In this situation it would have been appropriate if the High Court had corrected this error on the review petition and saved the Appellant the trouble and expense of an appeal to the Privy Council or to this 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 anything else.;