Himachal Pradesh High Court
Virender Pal & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 24 November, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Review Petition No.135 of 2023
Date of Decision: 24.11.2023
.
_______________________________________________________
Virender Pal & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
of
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate
rtGeneral.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 8
years 11 months and 31 days in filing the petition, which in my
considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The
application stands disposed of. The petition be registered.
Review Petition No.135 of 2023
2. By way of present Review Petition filed under Order 47
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has
been made on behalf of the review petitioners to review and recall the
judgment dated 27.11.2013, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP No.4115 of 2012, titled as Virender Pal and others vs.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
State of H.P and others, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent- State to
pay the due and admissible salary to the petitioners.
.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
4. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the
grounds urged in petition. The review jurisdiction is not meant to
of
appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged.
The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the
rt
case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be
questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the
decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record
cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held:
"11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected, but lies only for
patent error. We do not consider that this
furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing
with this difference exhaustively or in any
great detail, but it would suffice for us to say
that where without any elaborate argument
one could point to the error and say here is a
substantial point of law which stares one in
the face, and there could reasonably be no
two opinions entertained about it, a clear
case of error apparent on the face of the
record would be made out....."
(P.1377)
5. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the
order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of
justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise,
.
entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision
to be otherwise.
6. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid
down in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlesh
of
Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav
Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present
rt
petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed
of.
7. Since prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for
regularization has been neither considered nor rejected by learned
Single Judge while passing the order/judgment sought to be
reviewed, petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance
and in this regard, plea of limitation shall not come in their way in
prosecuting the appropriate proceedings.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
November 24, 2023
(shankar)
