Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia Devi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -1-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 (02 cases) RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-27815-2018
Date of Decision :22.01.2025
Sonia Devi and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021
Shikha Kaura and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate &
Mr. Shubham Parmar, Advocate for the review-applicants.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. Present review petitions have been filed by some of the
petitioners, who had filed joint petitions on the ground that the report of the
Chief Vigilance Officer is at variance with certain recommendations hence,
review of order dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court by which, the writ
petitions were dismissed, has been sought.
2. While addressing the issue various factors have been
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -2-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
considered in order to accept the decision passed by the authority concerned
to scrap the selection process.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the review-applicants has failed to
rebut that the ultimate recommendations made by the Chief Vigilance
Officer of the Local Government, contain adverse observations qua the
selection process.
4. Once, the various factors have been considered to uphold the
order passed by the authority concerned to scrap the selection process, the
mere fact that recommendations of the Vigilance Department, according to
the review-applicants, were not supported by the Principal of the Institute,
cannot be deemed sufficient ground for reconsideration of the order passed
by the Court.
5. Further, it has already been held that various relatives of the
employees working in the Institute had been selected hence, the Principal of
the Institute will always defend the selection process. Once, the Vigilance
Department has come to the conclusion that the selection process was
under cloud, which report was accepted by the competent authority and this
Court after going through the various factors has upheld the said order, the
grounds raised in the present review petitions to seek the review of order
dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court, cannot be entertained.
6. Additionally, the next argument of the learned Senior counsel
for the review-applicant is that even as per the findings, the paper leak was
not verifiable.
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -3-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
7. The word used is "not verifiable' does not mean that it has been
held that there was no leak of paper. The only question was the same could
not be verified but once there were major complaints and specific averments
were made that the same was leak to the relatives of the employees working
in the Institute, who were ultimately selected, the competent authority had
taken a decision, the same was rightly upheld by this Court.
8. Further argument which has been raised by the learned counsel
for the review-applicants is in the nature of readdressing the arguments to
re-appreciate the facts so as to arrive at a different conclusion. The review
petition is only permissible in case there is any factual error in the
judgment. The view taken on the issue cannot be re-agitated on the ground
that the same was not permissible in the fact and circumstances of the
present case.
9. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review
petition, the review-applicants cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the
review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be
placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai
Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is as under:-
5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this
Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required
to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court
has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an
application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -4-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is
observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is
further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed
that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake
but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is
further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency
to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally
decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review
powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:"
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error
apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of
record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking
at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two
opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason
which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a
court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 has
been held that it is only on discovery of new and important matter which
after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -5-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
order was made, the remedy of review may be exercised however, a review
petition cannot be filed on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits
as the same will be province of a Court of appeal. Relevant paragraph of the
judgment is as under:-
3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for
reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that
his predecessor had overlooked two important
documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the
respondents were in possession of the sites even in the
year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made
even by then. The second was that there was a patent
illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a
single writ petition, settlement made in favour of
different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the
reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial
Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is
true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing
in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of review which
inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits
to the exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be produced by
him at the time when the order was made; it may be
exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on
any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -6-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
That would be the province of a court of appeal. A
power of review is not to be confused with appellate
powers which may enable an appellate court to correct
all manner of errors committed by the subordinate
court."
11. While deciding the same issue of review, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 held
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 exercise of power of review. Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that review petition cannot be filed for an erroneous decision
to be reheard and corrected and the said review petition cannot be an appeal
in disguise. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
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 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 O Order rder 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. The said decision has already been followed by this Court in
Paramjit Singh through LRs vs. Gurdial Singh and others, 2022 SCC
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -7-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
Online P&H 1637. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
"The counsel has further in his arguments sought to raise the
points of self-contradictions self contradictions and self self-
defeating stands and which could not be taken into
consideration in a review application and and it is well
settled law as has sought to be relied upon by counsel for the
respondent who has cited the judgments titled as 'Sasi (D)
Through Lrs. v. Aravindakshan Nair' (2017) 2 RCR (Civil)
363 and 'Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi' (1997) 4 RCR (Civil)
458 458;; where the Apex Court has laid down that a review
cannot be allowed to be disguised as an appeal for getting an
erroneous decision reheard and corrected and has to be used
within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to rectify any error
patent on the records instead of assailing the orders on the
appeals by this Court before the next Court the instant review
has come about for a motivated cause. Since, this Court
cannot come across any mistake or an error apparent on the
records which could be self evident and any such
interpretation that is sought to be put forth by the counsel for
the applicant by process of reasoning cannot be considered at
this juncture."
13. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Ram Sahu
(Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Vinod Kumar
Rawat and others (2021) 13 SCC 1, held as under:-
"6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well
settled. The first and foremost require requirement ment of
entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which
is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order
and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In
the absence of any such error, finality attached attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed.'
9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -8-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes
place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of th the e applicant or could not be produced by him
at the time when the order was made. An application for review
would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some
mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for
any other sufficient sufficient reason.
10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does
not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general
rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not
be altered. It is also trite that pronounced, exercise of inherent
jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of
India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 :2000
SCC (Cri) 1056] this Court held : (SCC p. 251, para 56) '56. It
follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers
can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with
tthehe exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an
appeal in disguise.' "
8. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of
looking, offer something again with a view to correction
or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is i the
creation of a statute. In v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,
(1971) 3 SCC 844] , this Court has held that the power of review
is not an inherent power. It must be conferre conferredd by law
either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is
also not an appeal in disguise.Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi
9. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court
in v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440] . It is held that such an
error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong
decisiT.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappaon. In Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008957
RA-CW-31-2025 (O&M) in -9-
CWP-27815-2018 &
RA-CW-33-2025 (O&M) in
CWP-13037-2021 &
Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 110 11044 : AIR 1955 SC
233] , it is observed as under : (SCC p. 244, para 23)."
14. Keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed
hereinbefore as well as the fact that no factual discrepancy has been pointed
out in the order dated dated 17.12.2024, review is not permissible as the
arguments sought to be addressed under the garb of review are in the nature
of appeal hence, cannot be addressed before this Court in review petition.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
January 22, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
9 of 9
