[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Ors vs Daljit Singh And Another on 17 April, 2026

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     101
                                                                 CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and
                                                                 RA-CW-167-2026 (O&M) in
                                                                 CWP-30261-2024 (O&M)
                                                                 Decided on : 17.04.2026


                     Union of India and others

                                                                              . .Applicant
                                                        Versus

                     Daljit Singh and another

                                                                        . . . Respondents

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

                     PRESENT: None.

                            ****
                     HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-5017-CWP-2026

The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay

of 53 days in filing the present review application ( RA-CW-167-2026 ).

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application,

which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently,

the delay of 53 days in filing the present review application ( RA-CW-167-

2026 ) is condoned.

RA-CW-167-2026

1. In the present review application, the prayer of the review

applicant is for reviewing the order dated 01.12.2025 in CWP-30261-2024

passed by this Court.

2. The assertion which is being made in the present review

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

application is that the interpretation given by the Court is incorrect.

3. As per the settled principle of law, the jurisdiction to review an

order is very limited and same is only permissible, in case, any incorrect fact

or discrepancies in facts have been recorded to arrive at a conclusion.

Further, the remedy to file review is permissible, in case, any fact which was

not in the knowledge of the review applicant despite due diligence, has come

to the notice of such review applicant so as to press the same into review so

as to recall the order.

4. In the present case, the review of the order dated 01.12.2025 is

being sought on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Court

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case which were

brought on record, is not correct. The said ground is not permissible while

adjudicating upon a review application, as the contention that an order

passed by Court is incorrect can only be agitated in an appeal. Hence, no

review can be filed under the guise of an appeal in order to re-argue the case

so as to convince the Bench hearing the review application to arrive at a

different conclusion.

5. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition,

the review-applicant 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

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

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 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."

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

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

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 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

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 RIYA inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

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 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 selfdefeating

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."

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

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 to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.'

9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event

is recovery 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 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)

RIYA 1056] this Court held : (SCC p. 251, para 56) '56. It follows, therefore,

CM-5017-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-167-2026

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

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 decision in T.C.