Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ambuja Cement Ltd vs Manish Shukla And Anr on 21 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Review Petition No.: 48 of 2024
a/w Review Petition Nos. 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60 of 2024
Reserved on : 13.05.2025
Decided on : 21.05.2025
1.Review Petition No. 48 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Manish Shukla and Anr.
............Respondents
2.Review Petition No. 55 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Luxmi Devi and Anr.
............Respondents.
3.Review Petition No. 56 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Surksha Shukla and Ors.
............Respondents.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
4.Review Petition No. 57 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Varun Shukla and Anr.
............Respondents.
5.Review Petition No. 58 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Ved Prakash and Anr.
............Respondents
6.Review Petition No. 59 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Bimla Devi and Anr.
............Respondents
7.Review Petition No. 60 of 2024
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
..............Petitioner.
Versus
Ritu Shukla and Ors.
............Respondents
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan,
Advocate, with Mr. Virender
Thakur, Deputy Manager,
Legal.
For the respondent(s) : Nemo for the respondents.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
The Ambuja Cements Limited (for short, the
"ACL") has preferred these review petitions against
common judgement dated 08.05.2024 passed by this
Court in CMPMO Nos. 66, 51, 69, 68, 67, 49 and 65 of
2024. All these review petitions are being decided by a
common order as identical questions of fact and law are
involved.
2. The ACL has been impleaded as one of the
defendants in seven separate suits filed by the 1st
respondents herein before the court of learned Civil
Judge, Arki. The ACL is running its Cement
Manufacturing Plant at Darlaghat in District Solan. The
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
"Ambuja-Darla-Kashlog-Mangu Transport Co-operative
Society (for short the 'Society') has been impleaded as
the 2nd defendant in all said suits. The Society has been
formed by the persons affected by the Cement Plant of
ACL.
3. Parties, hereafter shall be referred to by their
same status as they hold in the original Court.
4. The cause of action as pleaded in the said
suits is common which allegedly has arisen from the
action of ACL in placing check on the plying of trucks of
plaintiffs. In other words, the trucks of plaintiffs were
barred from being operated for the business of ACL.
Plaintiffs claimed their rights to operate their respective
trucks for the business of defendant by virtue of being
members of the Society, which is registered under the
Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968.
5. Plaintiffs claim themselves to be the affected
persons on account of establishment of cement
manufacturing plant of the ACL.
6. It has been alleged that the society and the
ACL have a binding contract whereby the members of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
the society have a right of plying their respective trucks
for the business of ACL.
7. Alongwith the suits, the plaintiffs also filed
applications for interim injunction seeking to restrain
ACL from placing any check or fetter in plying of their
trucks by society for transportation of raw material or
final produce manufactured by the ACL.
8. Learned Trial Court had allowed the
applications of the plaintiffs for interim injunction and
ACL was restrained from causing obstruction in the
transport business of plaintiffs and also from
implementing the orders of check put on the vehicles of
the plaintiffs till final adjudication of the main suit.
9. The orders passed by learned Trial Court
were assailed by plaintiffs by filing appeals under Order
43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned
Appellate Court has also affirmed the orders passed by
learned Trial Court.
10. Thereafter, the ACL sought intervention of
this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The petitions, so filed, by the ACL
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
before this Court were decided vide common judgement
dated 08.05.2024 and the orders passed by learned
Appellate Court as also the learned Trial Court were
affirmed.
11. By way of instant petitions, the above noted
judgement dated 08.05.2024, passed by this Court is
sought to be reviewed.
12. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the defendant has contended that the ACL
had blocked/stopped the trucks of plaintiffs on
28.08.2023 i.e. before the filing of the suits and
accordingly the ACL had raised an argument before
this Court that the suit and application for injunction
simpliciter were not maintainable without seeking the
relief of declaration and mandatory injunction, but this
Court had not considered such plea.
13. During the hearing of these matters learned
Senior Counsel for ACL filed an application in Review
Petition No. 59 of 2024, to place on record following
additional documents:-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
"(i) Copy of judgement dated 10.07.2024,
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CMPMO No. 328 of 2024 and other connected
matters titled as Ambuja Cement Limited Vs.
Dinesh Kumar and another;
(ii) copy of order dated 08.11.2024, passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No. 24467 of 2024."
14. On the basis of these judgements, it has been
contended that since a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has taken a different view in identical fact situation, an
anomalous situation has arisen for ACL, hence this
Court should review its order.
15. Thereafter, learned Senior Counsel has
contended that all other grounds taken in the review
petition may also be considered by this Court.
16. Having considered the submissions made by
learned Senior Counsel for ACL, I am of the considered
view that no ground for review is made out for the
reasons detailed hereafter.
17. It is more than settled that remedy of review
cannot be used as a disguise for appeal. The review can
only be allowed on one or more of the grounds
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
contemplated under Section 114 read with Order 47,
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment or
order is open to review if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. It is also settled that
an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected
by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record justifying the
Court to exercise its power of review. Reference can be
made to the following exposition of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs.
Integrated Sales Service Limited and another,
(2023)8 SCC 11:-
"29. A three Judge Bench of this Court
comprising of Hon'ble Sri S.R. Das, C.J., M.
Hidayatullah and Sri K.C. Das Gupta, J.J. in
the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan
Hegde and others Vs. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137,
discussed the scope of the phrase 'error
apparent on the face of record'. The challenge
before this Court in the said case was the
judgment of the High Court on the ground
whether it suffers from an error apparent on
the face of the record. The High Court had
issued a writ of certiorari and had quashed
order of the Tribunal and restored that of the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
Mamlatdar. In paragraph 8 of the report, the
issue which was to be considered is reflected.
The same is reproduced hereunder:
"8. The main question that arises for our
consideration in this appeal by special
leave granted by this Court is whether
there is any error apparent on the face of
the record so as to enable the superior
court to call for the records and quash the
order by a writ of certiorari or whether the
error, if any, was "a mere error not so
apparent on the face of the record", which
can only be corrected by an appeal if an
appeal lies at all."
30. After discussing the relevant material
on record, the conclusion is stated in
paragraph 17 of the report. The view was
that where an error which has to be
established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record. The view that long-drawn process of
arguments to canvass a point attacking the
order in a review jurisdiction, cannot be said
to be an error apparent on the face of record.
Relevant extract from paragraph 17 of the
report is reproduced hereunder:
"17....................Is the conclusion wrong
and if so, is such error apparent on the
face of the record ? If it is clear that the
error if any is not apparent on the face of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
the record, it is not necessary for us to
decide whether the conclusion of the
Bombay High Court on the question of
notice is correct or not. An error which has
to be established by a long drawn process
of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of
the record. As the above discussion of the
rival contentions show the alleged error in
the present case is far from self evident
and if it can be established, it has to be
established by lengthy and complicated
arguments. We do not think such an error
can be cured by a writ of certiorari
according to the rule governing the powers
of the superior court to issue such a writ.
In our opinion the High Court was wrong
in thinking that the alleged error in the
judgment of the Bombay Revenue
Tribunal, viz., that an order for possession
should not be made unless a previous
notice had been given was an error
apparent on the face of the record so as to
be capable of being corrected by a writ of
certiorari."
31. Another case which may be briefly
dealt with is the case of Parison Devi Vs.
Sumitri Devi (1997)8 SCC 715, where, this
Court ruled that under Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter
alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
on the face of the record. An error which is
not self-evident and has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be
an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the Court to exercise its power of
review. It also observed that a review petition
cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal
in disguise.
32. A series of decisions may also be
referred to wherein, it has been held that
power to review may not be exercised on the
ground that decision was erroneous on merits
as the same would be the domain of the
Court of appeal. Power of review should not
be confused with appellate powers as the
appellate power can correct all manners of
errors committed by the subordinate courts.
The following judgments may be referred:
1) Shivdeo Singh Vs. State of Punjab; AIR
1963 SC 1909
(2) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam
Pishak Sharma; AIR 1979 SC 1047
(3) Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhary (Smt.); (1995) 1 SCC
170.
(4) Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.;
(2009) 12 SCC 40
33. Recently, this Court in a judgment
dated 24.-2-2023 passed in S. Murali
Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Others,
(2023)13 SCC 515 observed that even though
a judgment sought to be reviewed is
erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to
review in exercise of powers under Order
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Futher, in the case of Perry
Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra
(2019)20 SCC 753, this Court observed that
while exercising the review jurisdiction in an
application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does
not sit in appeal over its own order.
34. In another case between Shanti
Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB,
(2020)2SCC 677, this Court observed that
scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 CPC is limited and
under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue
questions which have already been
addressed and decided. It was further
observed that an error which is not self-
evident and has to be detected by a process
of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of record.
35. From the above, it is evident that a
power to review cannot be exercised as an
appellate power and has to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of
record must be such an error which, mere
looking at the record should strike and it
should not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions."
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
18. Similar reiteration of law has been made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil)
No. 1620 of 2023, titled as Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., along with connected
matters, decided on 31st October, 2023, as under:-
8. Before adverting to the contentions
raised by the learned counsels for the parties,
let us regurgitate the well settled law on the
scope of review as contemplated in Order XLVII
of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order
XLVII of CPC.
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His
Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless
the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is
like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat
cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a
second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and
reversal of result......... A review in the
Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict
once given. So, the law laid down must rest in
peace."
10. It is also well settled that a party is not
entitled to seek a review of a judgment
delivered by this Court merely for the purpose
of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case.
The normal principle is that a judgment
pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only
when circumstances of a substantial and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
compelling character make it necessary to do
so.
11. In Parsion Devi and Others vs.
Sumitri Devi and Others (1987) 8 SCC 715,
this Court made very pivotal observations: -
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment
may be open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of
the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record justifying
the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to
be "an appeal in disguise."
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private
Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board
and Others (2020)2 SCC 677 , a three Judge
Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi and
Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (supra)
dismissed the review petitions holding that the
scope of review is limited and under the guise
of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
reagitate and reargue the questions which
have already been addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead)
Through Legal Representatives and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and
Others (2021) 13 SCC 1,
this Court restated the law with regard to the
scope of review under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII of CPC.
14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021
in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345- 8346 of 2018
(Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales
Service Limited & Another), this Court
reiterated the law and held that: -
"15. From the above, it is evident that a
power to review cannot be exercised as an
appellate power and has to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of
record must be such an error which, mere
looking at the record should strike and it
should not require any long-drawn process
of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions."
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently
the Constitution Bench in Beghar
Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retired) and Others (2021) 3 SCC 1, held
that even the change in law or subsequent
decision/ judgment of co-ordinate Bench or
larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is
that:-
(i) A judgment is open to review
inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the
Court is final, and departure from that
principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to
do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of record
justifying the court to exercise its power of
review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an
appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate
and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record
must be such an error which, mere looking
at the record should strike and it should
not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or
subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-
ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be
regarded as a ground for review."
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
19. Coming to the case in hand, the first
contention of the defendant that this Court had not
considered the argument in respect of the non-
maintainability of simplicitor suit for permanent
prohibitory injunction, in light of the already existing
stop order on the plying of trucks of plaintiffs at the
time of institution of suit, is proved wrong by the record.
In para-21 of the judgement dated 08.05.2024, passed
by this Court, it has clearly been noticed and held as
under:-
"21. As regards the contention of learned senior
counsel for the company that since the said
defendant had already completed the action of
stopping the vehicles of the plaintiffs from plying,
injunction order could not have been passed
during the pendency of the suit, the same
deserves to be rejected. The stoppage of plying of
vehicles of plaintiffs was not such an act which
was permanent or otherwise in such nature that
restraint placed could not be lifted. The action of
the company was having continuous adverse
effect on the rights of plaintiffs and its removal by
way of impugned orders cannot be said to an
illegal exercise of jurisdiction by learned trial and
the appellate courts."
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
20. As regards the different view taken by a
Co-ordinate bench of this Court again the prayer for
review cannot be entertained for the simple reason that
the judgement passed by the co-ordinate bench is
subsequent in time to the judgement passed by this
Court and the judgement of this Court has neither been
considered nor distinguished in the subsequent
judgements passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. Even otherwise, the issue before the co-ordinate
bench was with respect to the legality of the order
passed by learned Trial Court in the application of
defendant for rejection of plaint, whereas this court had
tested the orders of interim injunction passed against
ACL. This Court while passing the judgement dated
08.05.2024 had considered all those aspects as were
relevant for adjudicating the plea for interim injunction
in the given facts of the case.
21. All other grounds, as detailed in the review
petition, amounts to calling upon this Court to reopen
the merits of the issues, which is clearly impermissible
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
in the exercise of Review jurisdiction. Mere existence of
two opinions on an issue cannot be a ground for review.
22. In result, the prayer is declined and the
petitions are accordingly dismissed.
23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Satyen Vaidya)
21st May, 2025 Judge
(sushma)
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15005 )
