The court held that it had jurisdiction to review its own orders under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate any new or important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the applicant was duly served with the hearing notice by registered post, and there was no evidence of non-service. The applicant's counsel had been on record throughout, and the applicant's failure to participate in the proceedings was due to his own inaction. The court further held that the principles for setting aside a consent judgment were not applicable, as the issue was the entry of a judgment in default of attendance, not the setting aside of a consent judgment. The court concluded that the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the court process and that there was no merit in the application for review or setting aside the judgment. The application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.