Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib

The petitioners' special leave petition had been dismissed by an order of January 1974. They sought review of that order, and their counsel reargued the points raised at the leave stage, contending that a review amounted to a rehearing.

Writing for the Court, Krishna Iyer J. held that a review of a judgment is a serious step. Reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission, a patent mistake or a like grave error has crept in earlier through judicial fallibility. A repetition, through different counsel, of old arguments that have already been rejected, or minor mistakes of no consequence, are not enough.

The Court also cautioned counsel against giving routine certificates to support review petitions whose real purpose is to refight a lost battle, and stressed that the Bench and the Bar share responsibility for saving the Court's time in the face of mounting arrears.

That the earlier order refusing leave might have been open to another view did not justify review; the order carried the finality normal to such orders.