Shri Gurbir Singh Alag & Anr. vs Shri Robinder Singh Alag & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 31 AUGUST, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC010446242019
I.A. 20168/2026 & REVIEW PET. 334/2026
IN
+ CS(OS) 583/2019
SHRI GURBIR SINGH ALAG & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. P. V. Kapur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Jagdeep Singh Lamba, Ms.
Tanya Chanda, Mr. Sidhant Kapur
and Mrs. Kaveri Kapur, Advocates
versus
SHRI ROBINDER SINGH ALAG & ANR .....Defendants
Through: Mr Prashant Katara and Mr. Soin
Khan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 20168/2026 & REVIEW PET. 334/2026
1. The Petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 01.07.2026 passed
by this Court in I.A. No.11149/2020, by way of which the application under
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was dismissed.
2. The instant Suit is one for declaration, possession, permanent
injunction with respect to the Property bearing No. C-460, Defence Colony,
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 1 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
New Delhi – 110024, along with one room above the mezzanine floor and
the store room at the terrace of the Second Floor (“ Suit Property ”).
3. The Plaintiffs/Review Petitioners herein filed the Application being
I.A. 11149/2020, under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking passing of
judgment on admissions made by Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in the
Suit proceedings.
4. Vide the Judgment dated 01.07.2026, this Court dismissed the said
Application filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs/ Review Petitioners herein,
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC inter alia on the ground that there is no
averment in the Written Statement, or in any other pleading, or document
filed by the Defendants, where any categorical admission has been made,
entitling the relief under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
5. According to the Plaintiffs/Review Petitioners, the impugned
Judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record as it fails to
record as well as consider the submissions of the Plaintiffs/Review
Petitioners qua the admissions made by Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1
in their Written Statement, to the extent that such submissions have been
inadvertently omitted/overlooked.
6. It is stated that even though the Paragraph no. 14 of the Impugned
Judgment records the submissions of the Plaintiffs/Review Petitioners qua
the admissions made by Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in their Written
Statement as well as admissions by Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 of the
documents, however, the substantive portion of the impugned Judgment,
according to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, failed to take into account the
submissions and arguments advanced by the Petitioners in totality, which
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 2 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
included not just averments qua documents, but also admissions made by
Defendant No. 1 in their pleadings.
7. Accordingly, it is stated that the impugned Judgment fails to take into
consideration the averments on behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs with respect
to admissions made by Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 in their Written
Statement, specifically in Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7.
8. So far as Paragraph No. 6 of the Written Statement is concerned, it is
stated that in response to Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaint, there is no specific
denial by the Defendant No. 1. Therefore, in absence thereof, it would be
deemed to be admitted under Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 of the CPC. It is
stated that since the impugned Judgment failed to take the same into
account, it is erroneous.
9. As regards Paragraph No. 7 of the Written Statement, it is again stated
that the submission made therein by the Plaintiffs in their Plaint, wherein it
has been submitted that the Defendant No. 1 admitted the Oral Family
Settlement dated 14.04.1984, has been ignored in the Impugned Judgment.
10. It is also stated that the impugned Judgment fails to take into account
that so far as the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 21.06.1991 is
concerned, Defendant No. 1 has admitted his signatures on the said
document.
11. This Court has heard the parties and perused the material on record.
12. It is settled law that a review petition can be filed when the party, who
files the review petition, discovers new and important material evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record . It is
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 3 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
also well settled that a review is not meant for re-hearing of the case as a
review is not an appeal.
13. In Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, the
Apex Court has observed as under:
“ 12 . A review is not a routine procedure. Here we
resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any
feeling that the party has been hurt without being
heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless
satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of
the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice . In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk.
Habib [Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib, (1975) 1
SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 305 : 1975 SCC (L&S)
184] this Court observed : (SCC p. 675, para 1)
„1. … A review of a judgment is a serious step
and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a
glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave
error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. …
The present stage is not a virgin ground but
review of an earlier order which has the normal
feature of finality. ‟ ” (emphasis supplied)
14. Similarly, the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8
SCC 715, has observed as under:
“ 7 . It is well settled that review proceedings have to be
strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47
Rule 1CPC . In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State
of A.P. [Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P.,
1963 SCC OnLine SC 94 : (1964) 5 SCR 174 : AIR
1964 SC 1372] this Court opined : (AIR p. 1377, para
11)
„11. What, however, we are now concerned with
is whether the statement in the order of
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 4 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
September 1959 that the case did not involve any
substantial question of law is an “error apparent
on the face of the record”. The fact that on the
earlier occasion the Court held on an identical
state of facts that a substantial question of law
arose would not per se be conclusive, for the
earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly,
even if the statement was wrong, it would not
follow that it was an “error apparent on the face
of the record”, for there is a distinction which is
real, though it might not always be capable of
exposition, between a mere erroneous decision
and a decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but
lies only for patent error.’
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with
approval a passage from AribamTuleshwar
Sharma v. AribamPishak Sharma [AribamTuleshwar
Sharma v. AribamPishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389]
this Court once again held that review proceedings are
not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule
1CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 Order 47
Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 5 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
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 )
15. The Apex Court in Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy,
(2022) 17 SCC 255 , while discussing the scope of review has held as under:
“ 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. The mere possibility of two views on the
subject is not a ground for review. Once a review
petition is dismissed no further petition of review can
be entertained. The rule of law of following the
practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches
and not taking different views by the Benches of
coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be
followed and practised. However, this Court in
exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32
of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the
earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of
fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under
any other statute, can take a different view
notwithstanding the earlier judgment.
*
58 . Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under
Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in
the review petition or canvassed before us during the
arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment
in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India,
(1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . It is not the
case of the petitioners that they have discovered any
new and important matter which after the exercise of
due diligence was not within their knowledge or could
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 6 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of
passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us
were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the
petitioners before the Bench which, after considering
those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal
case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC
635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . We have also not found
any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
requiring a review. Error contemplated under the rule
must be such which is apparent on the face of the
record and not an error which has to be fished out
and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No
such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties seeking review of the
judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the
judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to
violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other
sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the
judgment. The words “any other sufficient reason
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1CPC” must mean “a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
those specified in the rule” as was held inChhajju
Ram v. Neki [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine
PC 11 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court
inMoran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose
Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 : (1955) 1 SCR
520 : AIR 1954 SC 526] . Error apparent on the face of
the proceedings is an error which is based on clear
ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. InT.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa,
(1954) 1 SCC 905 : (1955) 1 SCR 250 : AIR 1954 SC
440] this Court held that such error is an error which
is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.
InHari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC
881 : AIR 1955 SC 233] , it was held : (AIR p. 244,
para 23)
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 7 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
„23. … 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 on
either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut
rule by which the boundary between the two
classes of errors could be demarcated.
Mr Pathak for the first respondent contended on
the strength of certain observations of Chagla,
C.J. in — Batuk K. Vyas v. Salim M.
Merchant [Batuk K. Vyas v. Salim M. Merchant,
1952 SCC OnLine Bom 46 : ILR 1953 Bom 191] ,
that no error could be said to be apparent on the
face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it
required an examination or argument to establish
it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for
decision in the majority of cases. But there must
be cases in which even this test might break down,
because judicial opinions also differ, and an error
that might be considered by one Judge as self-
evident might not be so considered by
another. The fact is that what is an error apparent
on the face of the record cannot be defined
precisely or exhaustively, there being an element
of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it
must be left to be determined judicially on the
facts of each case.‟
Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners
have not made out any case within the meaning of
Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme
Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1CPC for
reviewing the judgment in SarlaMudgal
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 8 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
case [Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3
SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . The petition is
misconceived and bereft of any substance.”
(emphasis supplied)
25 . Under the garb of filing a review petition, a
party cannot be permitted to repeat old and
overruled arguments for reopening the
conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power
of review is not to be confused with the appellate
power which enables the superior court to correct
errors committed by a subordinate court. This
point has been elucidated in Jain Studios
Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [Jain Studios
Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5
SCC 501] wherein it was held thus : (SCC pp.
504-505, paras 11-12)
“11. So far as the grievance of the applicant
on merits is concerned, the learned counsel
for the opponent is right in submitting that
virtually the applicant seeks the same relief
which had been sought at the time of
arguing the main matter and had been
negatived. Once such a prayer had been
refused, no review petition would lie which
would convert rehearing of the original
matter. It is settled law that the power of
review cannot be confused with appellate
power which enables a superior court to
correct all errors committed by a
subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an
original matter. A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications. The power of
review can be exercised with extreme care,
caution and circumspection and only in
exceptional cases.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 9 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator
by the applicant herein had been made at
the time when the arbitration petition was
heard and was rejected, the same relief
cannot be sought by an indirect method by
filing a review petition. Such petition, in my
opinion, is in the nature of “second
innings” which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
26 . After discussing a series of decisions on
review jurisdiction in Kamlesh
Verma v. Mayawati [Kamlesh
Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 : (2013) 3
SCC (Civ) 782 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 265 : (2014)
1 SCC (L&S) 96] , this Court observed that
review proceedings have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC. As
long as the point sought to be raised in the
review application has already been dealt with
and answered, the parties are not entitled to
challenge the impugned judgment only because
an alternative view is possible. The principles for
exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly
summarised in the captioned case as below :
(SCC pp. 333-34, para 20)
“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;
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 10 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
(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 [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922
SCC OnLine PC 11 : AIR 1922 PC 112] ,
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose
Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius,
(1954) 2 SCC 42 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR
1954 SC 526] 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 India v. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [Union of
India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 337 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ)
797]
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.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 11 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
(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
re-heard 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Apex Court again while dealing with the scope of interference
and limitation of review in the case of Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs
Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs, (2009) 14 SCC 663 , observed as under :-
“33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review
jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:
“The law on the subject—exercise of power of
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 12 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
review, as propounded by the Apex Court and
various other High Courts may be summarised as
hereunder:
(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
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points
where there may conceivably be 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.”
In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated
by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been
applied.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. What emerges from the above case laws is that merely a review is
also not maintainable if there are two views on the subject or when it is the
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 13 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
case of the review petitioner that the court did not appreciate the pleadings
or evidence in a manner the party seeking review wanted.
18. The aforenoted exposition of law also reveals that unlike an appeal,
the scope of a Review is very limited. The Court’s power to Review is
limited to the express terms of the provision. Accordingly, the ingredients
enumerated under Order XLVII CPC have to be given a strict interpretation.
In the instant Petition, since the Petitioner has sought for review on the
ground of there being an error apparent on the face of record, this Court has
to therefore confine its scrutiny to determine if the impugned Judgment has
a glaring error, so substantial that if not intervened, it would lead to a
miscarriage of justice.
19. It is the case of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs that even though the
impugned Judgment records the averment of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs for
admissions made by Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in both Written
Statement as well as averment regarding admissions of the documents,
however, while dealing with the merits of the Application being I.A.
11149/2020 under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court did not take into
account averments of Petitioners/Plaintiffs so far as admissions of Defendant
No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in his Written Statement are concerned. In view of
the same, it is stated that the impugned Judgment suffers from an error
apparent on the face of record.
20. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs. A bare perusal of the impugned Judgment indicates
that the case advanced by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs qua the said Application
under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was taken into consideration in its
entirety. The law expounded as well as the justification given therein,
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 14 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
adequately covers the grounds raised by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in their
Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
21. The grounds on which review is now sought is that this Court did not
appreciate the pleadings of the Defendants in the correct perspective. In the
opinion of this Court, this cannot be a ground for review as re-appreciation
of pleadings in a particular manner cannot be a ground of review. The
impugned Judgment categorically records that Defendant No. 1/Respondent
No. 1 in his pleading, has consistently disputed the case advanced by the
Plaintiffs/Petitioners in their pleadings. Moreover, it has also been discussed
that Defendant No. 1 has disputed the contents of the documents, which
Plaintiff avers to have been admitted by them. Therefore, it has been
concluded that due to failure on the part of the Petitioners to prove
categorical admissions including the ones made in pleadings by the
Defendant No.1, and, that unequivocal and unconditional admissions being a
sine qua non for Order XII Rule 6, case under Order XII Rule 6 was held to
be not made out.
22. Furthermore, as regards Petitioners’ contention with respect to
Paragraphs No. 6 and 7 of the Written Statement, it is stated that this Court
failed to take into consideration that there was deemed admission of the Oral
Family Arrangement on the part of the Defendant in as much as the Written
Statement was silent to that effect. It is also stated that there was also a
categorical admission of Oral Family Arrangement on part of Defendant
No.1 in Paragraph No.7 of their Written Statement. This, as per the
Petitioner, was an error apparent on the face of the record.
23. It is to be noted that vide the impugned Judgment, this Court
categorically dealt with these averments. It was specifically discussed that
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 15 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
admissions in the pleadings as well as the admissions of the documents by
Defendant No. 1 were not unequivocal. Merely because admissions exist in
some form, it does not fulfill the yardstick of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
It was therefore held that considering that the judgment under Order XII
Rule 6 is a remedy available to the applicant without there being a trial, and
since it permanently denies the Defendant the remedy by way of appeal on
merits, therefore, the deemed admission under the ambit of Order VIII Rules
4 and 5 of the CPC cannot be a metric to grant the relief under Order XII
Rule 6 of the CPC.
24. This Court also notes that the submissions made through the instant
Review Petition are a mere reassertion of the submissions made and
arguments advanced before the Court under Order XII Rule 6 proceedings.
The Apex Court in Madhusudhan Reddy ( supra ) has also discussed that a
mere reassertion of old and already rejected averments cannot be made in a
review. Just because the Petitioner/Plaintiff feels that a different view could
have been taken in the impugned Judgment, it is not a ground for the Court
to accept the Review Petition. The scope of review is limited to the extent
that the error should be apparent on the face of the record. If an averment is
made where the error has to be scrutinized or when the error has to be
navigated and through an inference the error gets highlighted, then it does
not fulfill the requirement of Order XLVII of the CPC and therefore such an
assessment is not possible under the purview of review jurisdiction as the
Court does not sit in an appeal while exercising review jurisdiction. The
scope of review is to rectify a mistake and not to substitute a view. This
Court is therefore, not satisfied that the impugned Judgment reflects an error
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 16 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers under
Review.
25. In view of the above, the instant Review Petition is found without
merits and is resultantly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AUGUST 31, 2026
KM
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 583/2019 Page 17 of 17
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30