Union Of India And Others vs Armed Force Tribunal And Another on 24 April, 2026

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Sudeepti Sharma

           CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&                       -1-
           RA-CW-184-2026 in
           CWP-16171-2024

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

           101                                         CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&
                                                       RA-CW-184-2026 in
                                                       CWP-16171-2024
                                                       Date of Decision :24.04.2026


           Union of India and others                                          ...Petitioners


                                                  Versus


           Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
           Chandigarh and another                                             ...Respondents


           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
                  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

           Present:            Dr. Anju Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
                               for review-applicant/UOI.

                                           ***

           Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-5618-CWP-2026

1. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of

464 days in filing the present review application.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which

are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of days

464 in filing the present review application is condoned.

RA-CW-184-2026

3. Present review application has been filed by the

review-applicant/Union of India for the review of order dated 29.11.2024

(Annexure A-1) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-16171-

            CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&                       -2-
           RA-CW-184-2026 in
           CWP-16171-2024

2024 whereby, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the review-applicant/UOI argues that the

disability of Carcinoma Oral Cavity-Floor of Mouth (OPTD) incurred by

respondent-personnel cannot be treated as having been attributable to

military service. Learned counsel for the review-applicant/UOI further

argues that even though the said disability was not existing with the non-

applicant/respondent No.1 at the time of his recruitment but, it has to be seen

whether such disability has any causal connection with service condition or

not, before attributing the said disability to the military service, which has

not been done by the Court while passing the order under review.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the review-applicant/UOI

and have gone through the record with her able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that the argument is being raised to contend

that the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court, is incorrect so as to reach to different conclusion that the disability

which was found to be existing with respondent No.1 and has been treated as

disability and has been held to be attributable to military service so as to

grant the benefit of disability pension, is incorrect.

7. It may be further noticed that the review of the judgment can

only be entertained in case, the same is based on wrong facts or there is any

discrepancy in the facts. A finding recorded though, on the basis of correct

facts cannot be challenged under the garb of review so as to re-argue the

case to arrive at a different conclusion than the one already arrived at by the

Court. An incorrect order can only be challenged in an appeal.

            CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&                               -3-
           RA-CW-184-2026 in
           CWP-16171-2024

8. Further, the said disability was not found to be existing with

respondent No.2 when he was recruited in military service and further, the

Cancer is one of the disease, which has been held attributable to the military

service in many other cases hence, in the present review application, the

endeavour of the learned counsel for the review-applicant is to re-argue the

case under garb of review, which is not permissible.

9. Further, as per settled principle of law, an incorrect order can

only be challenged in an appeal and not in review petition. 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 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.
            CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&                              -4-
           RA-CW-184-2026 in
           CWP-16171-2024
(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

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

CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/& -5-

RA-CW-184-2026 in CWP-16171-2024

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."

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

CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/& -6- RA-CW-184-2026 in CWP-16171-2024

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

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

CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/& -7- RA-CW-184-2026 in CWP-16171-2024

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 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.' "
            CM-5618-CWP-2026 in/&                             -8-
           RA-CW-184-2026 in
           CWP-16171-2024
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. 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 facts and circumstances noticed

hereinabove, as well as the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore, the

present review application is dismissed.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

April 24, 2026 aarti Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No