Pitamber Mohan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
1
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CNR No: PHHC011856642026
RA-CWP-694-2026 in
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
PITAMBER MOHAN AND OTHERS ......Applicants/petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana
for respondent-State.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate
and Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
for non-applicants/respondent

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
1. The present review application has been filed in CWP-35973-
2025, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.10.2026 passed by this
Court.
2. Learned Senior counsel for applicants/petitioners contends that
the present review application is filed since there is error apparent in the
judgment dated 06.10.2026 passed by this Court in CWP-35973-2025.
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
2
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
3. Learned Senior counsel for non-applicants/respondents
contends that review applicants are asking for rehearing in the garb of
present review application.
3. I have heard the applicants/petitioners and perused the review-
application.
4. A bare reading of the review application shows that review
applicants, in the garb of present review application are asking for rehearing
of the main case i.e. CWP-35973-2025.
5. The principles as regards the scope and extent of review
jurisdiction of the Court, have been summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320 and
were reiterated by this Court as well, in the case of Columbia Holdings Pvt
Ltd and others v. State of Haryana and others RA-CW-357 of 2015 . The
principles set out as regards scope and extent of review jurisdiction in
various judicial precedents may be summarized as follows:-
A. Exercise of review jurisdiction is called for only in cases
where one of the following grounds exists:
(i) When there is discovery of new and important
matter or evidence, subject to the fulfillment of the
following conditions:-
a. new matter/evidence discovered is of such nature
which could change the judgment.
b. such new matter/evidence was not within the
knowledge of the party seeking review
c. same could not be produced before court even
after due diligence
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
3
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
(ii) When mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
(iii) When there exists "any other sufficient reason",
which is interpreted as analogous to the aforesaid
two grounds.
B. The review jurisdiction is not exercisable on following
grounds:-
(i) Only a "patent error" and not a "mere wrong
decision" can be said to be an error apparent on the
face of record.
(ii) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines
its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(iii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and
searched.
(iv) If a matter is required to be first reheard and then
corrected, it would be an appeal under the guise of
review
(v) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(vi) The power of review is to be exercised for
"correction of mistake" and not for "substitution of
view". Substitution of view would be the province
of an appellate court.
(vii) Merely because a document which was forming
part of the record was not considered at the time of
deciding the case cannot be categorized as a
mistake or error apparent on the face of record.
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
4
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
(viii) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(ix) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(x) 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.
(xi) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived.
(xii) Failure to argue a point at the time of hearing of the
matter by the court, is also not a ground for seeking
review as it would be a case where the existing
material was overlooked by counsel and not a case
of excusable misfortune or mistake.
6. Justice Krishna Iyer, in Northern India caterers (India) Ltd. v.
Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 (2) SCC 167 , while highlighting the limited
scope of review of judgment observed as under:
“A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is
manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon” .
7. In “ Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through legal representatives and
others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others ” reported in (2021) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of
the Court’s power to review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of
the CPC and held that the power to review was not an inherent power of the
Court. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
5
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
implication. A review cannot be an appeal in disguise. A re-hearing of the
matter is impermissible in law. It is beyond doubt or dispute that the review
Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It only constitutes an
exception to the general Rule that once a judgment is signed and pronounced
it should not be altered.
8. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Court can review its decision
on the following grounds:
“1. Application for review of judgment:-
1. Any person considering himself aggrieved-
a. By a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
b. By a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
c. By a decision on reference from a Court of small
causes, and who from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made,
or on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
2. A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding
the pendency of an appeal by some other party except
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
6
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
where the ground of such appeal is common to the
applicant and the appellant, or when being respondent
he can present to the appellate court the case on which
he applies for the review.”
9. The expression “ any other sufficient reason ” has to be
interpreted in the light of other specific grounds. An erroneous decision/
order cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
10. The principles culled out in “ Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest
Officers Assn. ” reported in (2007) 9 SCC 369 , are reproduced herein below:
“xxx
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision
under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to
the power of a civil Court under Section 114 read with
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the
grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not
otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in
the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be
discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be
treated as an error apparent on the face of record
justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in
the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section
22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
7
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
of a coordinate or larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a
superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the
Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference
to material which was available at the time of initial
decision. The happening of some subsequent event or
development cannot be taken note of for declaring the
initial order/ decision as vitiated by an error
apparent.
(viii)Mere discovery of new or important matter or
evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party
seeking review has also to show that such matter or
evidence was not within its knowledge and even after
the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be
produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
11. In “ Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma ”
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , it has been observed by Apex Court as under:
“xxx xxx xxx xxx
3.... It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdev
Singh v. State of Punjab 10, 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
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
8
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
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.
Xxx ”
12. In the recent judgment of Apex Court in “ Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) and another ” reported in (2024) 2
Supreme Court Cases 362 , it has again been reiterated that a party was not
entitled to seek a review merely for the purpose of re-hearing. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced herein below:
“xxx
10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a
review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the
purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The
normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is
final, and departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make
it necessary to do so.
11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi , this Court made very
pivotal observations: (SCC p. 719, para 9)
"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
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
9
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
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 Order 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". (emphasis supplied)
xxx”
13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its recent judgment passed in
“ Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna and another ” reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
1927 , has 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
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
10
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
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.
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

RA-CWP-694-2026 in
11
CWP-35973-2025 (O&M) - -
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.”
14. Since, there is no mistake apparent in the judgment dated
06.10.2026 passed in the main case i.e. CWP-35973-2025, therefore, in view
of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, the
present review application is dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
11.11.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
SAHIL JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SAHIL
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.