Uttarakhand High Court
Krishan Murari Shahi ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 12 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
REVIEW APPLICATIONS MCC NO. 01 OF 2025
DELAY CONDONATION APPLNS. NO. 02 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 06 OF 2025
12TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
Krishan Murari Shahi ...... Petitioner/review applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & anr. ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 07 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 08 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 09 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 10 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 11 OF 2025
Counsel for the petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for
the review applicants
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel for State / respondent No. 1
: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel
for respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Mahra)
1. There is delay of 92 days in filing the aforementioned
review applications, which is not seriously opposed by
learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the delay
in filing the review applications is condoned. The delay
condonation applications (I.A. No. 02 of 2025) are
allowed.
2. The instant review applications have been filed by
the petitioners. All the writ petitions were dismissed after
hearing the counsel for the parties.
3. Today, by means of instant review applications, the
petitioner is trying to re-argue the matter, which is not
permissible in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs K. Suguna and
another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, wherein
it has been held as under:
"15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal
cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the
statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The
review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is
conferred by law on the authority or the Court.
Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the
power of review of the courts. The power of review is
different from appellate power and is subject to the
following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial
decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of
an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope
and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 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.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 of 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.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for
the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a
view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits
specified in the statute governing the exercise of
power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over
its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the
general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is
invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors.
16. To wit, through a review application, an
apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court,
but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the
said error. The intimation of error at the first blush
enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of
the higher court correcting such errors. At both the
above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between the
power of review and appellate power, we restate the
power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review
grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and
important matter or evidence is a ground available if it
is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due
diligence, this evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced by the party at
the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record may be invoked if there is something more
than a mere error, and it must be the one which is
manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a
patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error
which has to be established by a long-drawn process
of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient
reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the other two
categories.
18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one
jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. Having noted the
appellate and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will
apply these principles to the impugned order to
determine whether the High Court was within its
power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by
reversing the findings, as if the High Court were sitting
in appeal against the order dated 23.09.2022. We
appreciate the above tabulated summary of the view
taken in the impugned order while doing so."
4. It appears that the review applicants have again
agitated those arguments, which have already been
dealt with by the Court while rendering the decision in
writ petitions.
5. Review is available only on a limited ground that if
there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of
record, the same may be brought to the notice of the
Court. There is no mistake or error apparent on the
face of record which requires review of the common
judgment and order dated 05.03.2025.
6. Accordingly, all the review applications stand
rejected.
_____________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
Negi
