[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Wrw / 217U / 2026Gajendra vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:22665-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 125/2026
1. Gajendra S/o Jiyaram Meghwal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Meghwal Basti, Near Raghunath Ji Chandpol, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
2. Surja Ram S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Bheelon Ka Baas, Bhakrasni, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Raju Ram S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Bheelon Ka Baas, Bhakrasni, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4. Prakash S/o Raju Ram Bheel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Bheelon Ka Baas, Bhakrasni, Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. Tara Chand S/o Pukhraj Mali, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
H.no. 287, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Urban Development
And Housing, Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur
3. The Director, Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur
4. The District Collector, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
5. The Secretary, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur
6. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
7. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kudi-Bhagtasani, Jodhpur
8. Gram Panchayat Jhalamand, Jodhpur, He Sarpanch
9. The Vyas Dental College, Bhakrasni, Through Its
Proprietor Shri Dr Manish Vyas.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
12/05/2026
For the reason stated in the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the review petition is
condoned and the application is allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that
provisions of Section 102 of the Act have not been correctly
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 11:58:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22665-DB] (2 of 3) [WRW-125/2026]
examined. It is also submitted that the Division Bench did not
take into consideration that there is a prohibition under the Rules
of 1978.
3. The issue being taken up for review cannot be for re-
examining the case on merits. We are sitting in review jurisdiction
and the scope of review is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana
[(2024) 14 SCC 1] has recently held as under:-
" 19. At the outset, we must reiterate that the scope of
review by this Court is very limited. The scope of
review jurisdiction has been delineated by this Court in
a catena of judgments. We would not like to burden
the present judgment by reproducing all those
judgments. This Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
(2013) 8 SCC 320, after surveying the earlier law laid
down by this Court has summarised the principles
thus: (SCC pp. 333-34, para 20)
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated
by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of Sandurv. Sandur Manganese &
Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 11:58:09 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22665-DB] (3 of 3) [WRW-125/2026]
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage
of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out
and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot
be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter
had been negatived.
20. It is thus settled that the review would be
permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason
is made out. We are also equally aware of the fact that
the review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case. The review of the
judgment would be permissible only if a material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are
also aware that such an error should be an error
apparent on the face of the record and should not be
an error which has to be fished out and searched."
4. Considering the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to
entertain this review petition. The review petition is dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
10-a.asopa/-
(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 11:58:09 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
