RAMA NAIDU Vs. S K PARTHASARATHY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedures nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. ... Even the law bends before justice, ... If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake....... Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification depending on if it is fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. ,,, If the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order. Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principles that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality." The above is the extract from S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 which was referred to by a Division Bench of this Court in Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education (1995) 2 CTC 513 while dealing with the important features of a review application. In the same decision the following principles were also laid :

(2.) This review petition is against the judgment in S. A. No. 499 of 2001. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 5006 of 1996 filed by the first respondent herein, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The first review petitioner was the first defendant and the second respondent was the second defendant. The main controversy is only between these persons.

(3.) Certain facts are not in dispute. The first review petitioner (RP 1 in short) needed funds to purchase certain immovable properties. He approached respondents 1 and 2 and both of them gave him a sum of Rs. 1,00,001/-. The purpose for which RP 1 wanted to purchase the immovable property was to do some real estate business and realise profits. The agreement was that he would return this amount together with one fifth share in the profits realised. With the aid of the amounts given by respondents 1 and 2, RP 1 purchased the immovable property.