Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 3 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
RA-CW-465-2025 in
CWP-22082-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) RA-CW-465-2025 in
CWP-22082-2024
Date of Decision : November 03, 2025
Dr. Harvinder Singh and others .. Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners.
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel and
Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1-UOI.
Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Varun Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent-UT.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present application has been filed for review of the order dated
29.08.2025 passed in CWP No.22082 of 2024. The present case is decided
along with CWP No.15912 of 2024 and connected cases.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits
that keeping in view the facts and law noticed in the said order, the finding
that has been recorded that the petitioners were not entitled for the salary for
the period which they did not perform the duties, is not correct hence,
keeping in view the fact that the similarly situated employees, who had
earlier approached the appropriate Court for claiming the said benefit, were
granted the same, the same benefit should have been given to the review-
applicant herein.
1 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-
petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
4. The scope of the review is limited. It is being projected by the
learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners that keeping in view the facts
and law which have been noticed in the order being reviewed, the view
taken was not permissible and same needs to be corrected, the said aspect
does not fall within the domain of the review rather the same is falls in the
domain of appeal.
5. 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 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
2 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
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."
6. 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
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 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
"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 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."
7. 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
4 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
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
selfevident 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".
8. 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 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
5 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
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."
9. 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 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
6 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
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 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
conferred 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 decision T.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)."
7 of 8
RA-CW-465-2025 in
10. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed
hereinbefore, the review application which has been filed by the applicant-
petitioners is only to re-argue the case so as to contend that the findings
recorded by the Court are not correct, hence the review application is not
maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
11. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present application.
12. Accordingly, the review-application is dismissed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
November 03, 2025 (VIKAS SURI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
8 of 8
