vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. REVIEW PETITION NO.67 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION NO.67 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION NO.67 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF 2007 Competent Authority & Director Medical Education & Research ... Petitioner V/s. Pooja Rajaram Yadav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.P. Pandit, AGP, for Petitioner Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for Respondents CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: MARCH 30, 2009 MARCH 30, 2009 MARCH 30, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The applicant seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2007 on the ground that there was an erroneous impression on the part of the applicant and the judgment which was not to be treated as a precedent had been relied. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India & anr. v/s. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 592 AIR 2005 SC 592 AIR 2005 SC 592 to contend that the mistake on the part of the Court would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking and any erroneous finding recorded would fall within the ambit and scope of the expression "sufficient reason" under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. : 2 : 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, non-applicant relies upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v/s. Rambhai & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2095 AIR 2003 SC 2095 AIR 2003 SC 2095 and Haridas Das v/s. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 78 (2006) 4 SCC 78 (2006) 4 SCC 78 to contend that the fact that all aspects of a case are not highlighted or there was some error or mistake cannot be a ground for reviewing a judgment as it does not amount to error on the face of the record. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the orders sought to be reviewed, it is clear that the Bench had relied upon the judgment of the Court in the case of Girijashankar Varma v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (Lodging) No.634 of 2007. In paragraph 5, the Bench had specifically quoted "As a natural consequence, after the above conclusion, we would have ordinarily cancelled the admission and prohibited the petitioner from pusuing further studies." After noticing this, as a matter of principle, it was noticed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances where a candidate had lost her father and was pursuing her studies under grave financial and social constraints, the Bench granted some limited relief but with clear direction "in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the petitioner so also without : 3 : creating any precedent, we direct........" In other words, the Court stated no principle of law in that case but granted relief on equitable ground which can hardly apply as a precedent to the case. The provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 have been worded very widely by the Legislature wherein it has used the expression "any other sufficient reason" which vests the Court with wide discretion and would include misconception of law or fact or both under which the advocates or the Court was under a different impression. In the present case, the learned Counel appearing for the applicant submitted that he had made this statement under a bonafide impression that it is a principle of law which has been stated as the judgment was referred during the course of the arguments. We have no doubt that the error occured is bonafide. For these reasons, we allow this review application and recall our order dated 26.7.2007. 4. Review Petition is allowed. The Writ Petition No.946 of 2007 be listed for hearing after four weeks. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)