Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank ... vs Shingara Singh And Anr on 24 March, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 257)
(1) RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018
Date of Decision : 24.03.2025
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Kirpal Singh and another
...Respondents
(2) RA-CW-201-2021 in
CWP-23260-2018
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Dalbir Singh and another
...Respondents
(3) RA-CW-200-2021 in
CWP-23270-2018
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Singh and another
...Respondents
(4) RA-CW-199-2021 in
CWP-23257-2018
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Shingara Singh and another
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2025 10:23:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
2
...Respondents
(5) RA-CW-198-2021 in
CWP-22057-2018
The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Darshan Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Paramjit Kaur Deol, Advocate for the review-applicant
in all cases
Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent in all cases.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. The present review applications have been filed for review of
the order dated 12.05.2021 by which the writ petitions filed by the Workmen,
were dismissed. Against the said order, the Workmen have already filed
LPAs, which are pending.
2. The present review applications have been filed by the Bank on
the ground that the findings which have been recorded by the Court while
passing the order dated 12.05.2021, are not correct.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners
submits that in case the record was destroyed by the Workmen, no relief
could have been granted to the Workmen by the Tribunal on the ground that
the record was not produced so as to draw an adverse inference.
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
4. I have heard learned counsel for the review-applicant and have
gone through the record with her able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction of the Court in review
petition is very limited. In review, the judgment cannot be challenged on the
ground that the said judgment is incorrect. The said grievance can only be
raised before the appellate forum in appeal and not before the Court deciding
the petition. The present review applications have been filed on the ground
that the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing the order dated
12.05.2021 is incorrect. Against 'incorrect' order as being alleged by the
review-applicant, the review is not maintainable.
6. The scope of the review has already been discussed in various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein, it has been held
that a review petition cannot be filed to re-argue the case and its scope is
only limited to any incorrect fact noticed on the basis of which the judgment
has been given. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as
well as this Court illustrating the said position of law 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
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
Section 114 CPC, the 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 long drawn 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."
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
7. Further, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC
389, wherein, it has been held that it is only on the 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 order was made but 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
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
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 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."
8. 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".
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
9. The said decision has already been followed by this Court in
Paramjit Singh through LRs vs. Gurdial Singh and others, 2022 SCC
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."
10. 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 of
entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
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
event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes
place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the 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 the
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 Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043303
RA-CW-202-2021 in
CWP-25879-2018 and
other connected matters
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844] , this Court
has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It
must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary
implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise.
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.
Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 110 11044 : AIR 1955 SC
233] , it is observed as under : (SCC p. 244, para 23)."."
11. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
review of the order and the review applications are accordingly dismissed.
The review applicants will be free to avail the remedy of appeal in case,
petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
March 24, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
9 of 9
