Union Of India vs No. 18001817, Ex. Spr. Lakhdev Singh And Anr.

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
Date of Decision : October 30, 2026
Union of India and others .. Petitioners
Versus
Ex. SPR. Lakhdev Singh and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioners.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
CM-18539-CWP-2026
Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay
of 589 days in filing the review application i.e. RA-CW-624-2026.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 589
days in filing the review application i.e. RA-CW-624-2026 is condoned.
RA-CW-624-2026
1. The present review application has been filed for review of the
order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Court in CWP
No.35304 of 2024 titled as Union of India and others vs. Ex. SPR Lakhdev
Singh and another .
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
2
2. It may be noticed that the order was dictated in open Court in
the presence of learned counsel for the petitioners. Even otherwise, review of
the order was permissible only in the event any wrong fact had been noticed
therein.
3. On being asked to point out any wrong fact noticed in the
judgment dated 14.01.2025, learned counsel for review applicant-petitioners
has not been able to point out any such fact.
4. As per the settled principle of law, incorrect judgment cannot be
challenged in review as the scope of review is very narrow so as to correct
any order, which is based upon any incorrect fact, which was relevant could
not be brought to the notice of this Court.
5. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review
petition, the review-applicant-petitioners 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
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.
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
3
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 Pishak 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:-
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
4
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. The 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:-
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
5
8. 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 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 and 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;
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."
9. Recently, the 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:-
“8. An application for review would lie inter alia when the
order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
6
permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In
Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai this Court held:
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)
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 the exercise of power. The
review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.' "
7. 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.
8. 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 the
case of T.C. Basappa vs. 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 the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque , AIR
1955 SC 233, it is observed as under:
“It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it
must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real
difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the
statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a
particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and
become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned counsel
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-18539-CWP-2026 in/and
RA-CW-624-2026 in
CWP-35304-2024
7
on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the
boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated.”
10. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed
hereinbefore, the review application which has been filed by the review
applicant-petitioners is only to re-argue the case so as to contend that the
findings recorded by the Court is not correct, hence the review application is
not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
11. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. Present review application is dismissed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
October 30, 2026 JUDGE
harsha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
HARSHA RANI
2026.11.02 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document