JUDGMENT Gupta, J: This is an application for review of a judgment dated January 20, 1969 passed by A. N. Ray, J., as his lordship then was, and Bagchi, J. by which they affirmed an order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. disposing of an application for contempt. 2. The application for contempt was made against the petitioners by the opposite party before us alleging that they had violated an order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. made in C. R. 1295 (W) on February 7, 1966. The order stated to have been violated runs as follows: "Upon the petitioners satisfying the Commercial Tax Officer about the proper user of the 20 declaration forms issued in obedience to the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Banerjee dated June 9, 1965, the respondent Commercial Tax Officer, shall issue 20 declaration forms to the petitioner as prayed for in his application dated December 11, 1965. The said forms shall be issued within 28th February, 1966". 3. The first petitioner before us who happened to be a Commercial Tax Officer at the relevant time insisted on the production of the relevant books of account by the opposite party to satisfy himself about the proper user of the aforesaid 20 declaration forms. . 4. It appears that on October 18, 1965 the opposite party's place of business had been searched and his moveable properties including 8 show cases were seized in a certificate proceeding against him. 5. On February 25, 1966 a letter was addressed by the opposite party's lawyer to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, stating that all the stocks belonging to the opposite party had been seized by the Certificate Officer, Alipore, and alleging that the Commercial Tax Officer was not issuing the declaration forms wilfully. Subsequently in the affidavit-'in-reply affirmed on September 20, 1966 filed on behalf of the present opposite party in the said Contempt proceeding it was stated for the first time that on October 18, 1965 the stock and furniture of opposite party including some of the books of account had been seized by the Certificate Officer, Alipore, in the presence of the preiient petitioner No.1. To this affidavit, a plain copy of the seizure list was annexed which supported the statement made in the affidavit. To this affidavit, a plain copy of the seizure list was annexed which supported the statement made in the affidavit. Thereafter in a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party on April 2, 1968 a certified copy of the seizure list was annexed. Binayak Nata Banerjee, J. in disposing of the contempt proceeding relied on the certified copy of the seizure list and commanded the present petitioner No.1 to make available to the opposite party the books of account- seized in executing of the certificate proceedings. In the appeal preferred against that order by the petitioners before us the appellate court also relied on the said certified copy and dismissed the appeal with the observation that "it is manifest that the copy of the seizure list was with the State Authorities and they did not produce the same". 6. In the Review petition the following statements inter alia have been made : i) In the petition for contempt there was no allegation that the books of account of the opposite party had been seized. In the letter dated February 25, 1966 addressed by the opposite party's lawyer to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the only complaint that• was made was that all the stock belonging to the opposite party had been seized and that the Commercial Tax Officer was not issuing declaration forms. It was for the first time in his affidavit-in-reply affirmed on September 20, 1966 that it was stated that the opposite party's books of account had been seized. ii) In case of seizure in a certificate proceeding, after a seizure list is prepared, it is signed by the Nazir or Assistant Nazir who seizes the goods and the signature of the certificate debtor or that of his man present at the time of seizure is taken on the seizure list along with the signature of witness. The seizure list is made in duplicate and the original it given to the certificate debtor or his man as the case may be and the duplicate copy is kept on record. It is claimed that in the matter of seizure made on October 18, 1965 the same procedure was followed. The seizure list is made in duplicate and the original it given to the certificate debtor or his man as the case may be and the duplicate copy is kept on record. It is claimed that in the matter of seizure made on October 18, 1965 the same procedure was followed. iii) In answer to the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the opposite party on April 2, 1968 three affidavits were filed on April 20, 1968, one by the petitioner No. 1 who was present at the time of seizure of the goods, another by the Assistant Nazir in the Office of the Certificate Officer, 24 Parganas who attached the movables and prepared the seizure list, and the third by another Commercial Tax Officer who was also present at the time of the seizure. In all these affidavits it was stated that no books of account were seized on October 18, 1965 and that in the seizure list prepared and signed on that date, there was no mention about the seizure of any books of account. iv) In the contempt proceeding neither the Certificate Officer nor the Collector, 24-Parganas, nor the State of West Bengal was a party. There was no record with the petitioners to show that was included in the seizure list. Besides, at the relevant time the certificate file which contained a copy of the seizure list was not in the Office of the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas. In these circumstances, the copy of the seizure list which was in the certificate file could not be produced at the time of the hearing of the contempt proceeding. v) There is no explanation why the original seizure list which was with the opposite party was not produced by him. After the contempt proceeding was disposed of, an enquiry was directed to be made by the Board of Revenue, West Bengal some time in August, 1970. The enquiry which was concluded in June 1972 revealed that the copy of the seizure list which on record of the certificate proceeding was an interpolated document, the words "with the books of account" occurring between items 16 and 17 of the list were interpolations. A copy of the enquiry report together with the report of the hand-writing expert is an annexure namely, Annexure-C, to the Review Petition. A copy of the enquiry report together with the report of the hand-writing expert is an annexure namely, Annexure-C, to the Review Petition. It is stated that the reports came to the knowledge of the petitioners before us on June 19, 1972. vi) It is stated that it would appear from the record that an urgent application for certified copy of the seizure list was filed in the office of the Collector, 24-Parganas on June 23, 1966 and the certified copy was made ready on August 6, 1.966. The allegation that books of account had been seized was made for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on behalf of the opposite party on September 20, 1966. Prior to this the opposite party never claimed that his books of accounts had been seized. 7. On the above facts the petitioners state in paragraph 28 of the Review Petition that no books of account having been seized on 18th October, 1965, it is not possible to carry out the command in B. N. Banerjee, J's order disposing of the contempt Rule. 8. The facts stated in the Review petition if true, would alter the complexion of the case altogether. The case of interpolation cannot be rejected out of hand. According to the petitioners the interpolation in the copy of the seizure list revealed as a result of the enquiry was discovery of new and important matter. If the allegation of interpolation is correct, then the order of B. N. Banerjee, J. made in the contempt Rules as also the order of the appellate court which affirmed the order of B. N. Banerjee, J. were both made under a misapprehension of fact. In these circumstances, we think that the prayer for review should be granted and the appeal re-heard. 9. An objection was taken op behalf of the opposite party that the petition for review was time barred. We do not think that there has been any undue delay in making the application for review after the alleged interpolation was discovered. It was also contended that order 47 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application in this case which arises out of a contempt proceeding. We do not think that there has been any undue delay in making the application for review after the alleged interpolation was discovered. It was also contended that order 47 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application in this case which arises out of a contempt proceeding. Assuming that order 47 Rule I does not apply, to prevent miscarriage of justice the court has inherent power to rectify its own error when the error arose as in this case, out of a misapprehension as to a material fact. 10. For the reasons stated above we allow this petition for review, set aside the judgment of the appellate court and direct that the appeal be re-heard. The petitioners will be at liberty to bring on record of, the appeal by affidavit the new matter discovery of which is alleged, in the review petition; the opposite party will also be entitled to file affidavit-in-opposition, if he intends to question the statements made in the petitioner's affidavit. The appeal will be decided upon the entire material on record. The Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. S. K. Dutta, J. : I agree.