Parmdip Singh vs Shriomani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee And Another

-1-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

109
1. RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.4327 of 2023
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026

Parmdip Singh .....Applicant/Petitioner
VERSUS
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and another …..Respondents

2. RA-CW No.515 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.11503 of 2022

Gurbachan Singh Singh .....Applicant/Petitioner
VERSUS

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and another …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate (through VC)
for the applicants/petitioners in both the review applications.
*

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CM-15243-CWP-2026 in RA-CW No.502 of 2026 and
CM-15662-CWP-2026 in RA-CW No.515 of 2026
Instant applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 223 days in
filing of the review applications.
Heard.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the applications as well as
arguments addressed, the same are allowed. Delay of 223 days in filing of both the
applications is condoned.
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-2-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


RA-CW No.506 of 2026 and
RA-CW No.504 of 2026
1. The present review applications have been preferred under Order
XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking
review of the common judgment dated 17.12.2025 passed by this Court in a bunch
of writ petitions, lead case being CWP No.1301 of 2022, ‘Kanwaljit Singh v.
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee’ including CWP No.4327 of
2023 and CWP No.11503 of 2022.
inter alia
Learned counsel for the review applicants/petitioners, ,
2.
contends the applicants/petitioners the judgement under review has not
independently taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case. It is argued that these facts go to the root of the adjudication of both
the abovenoted writ petitions and therefore, their non-consideration amounts to an
error apparent on the face of the record. It is, accordingly, contended that the
judgment dated 17.12.2025 be reviewed and recalled qua the present
applicants/petitioners and CWP No.4327 of 2022 as well as CWP No.11503 of
2022 be adjudicated afresh on its own facts and pleadings.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners and have gone
through the file.
4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has
categorically held that an order can be reviewed only on the grounds prescribed
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, i.e., (a) discovery of new and
important matter or evidence; (b) error apparent on the face of the record; and (c)
any other sufficient reason. The expression “any other sufficient reason” has been
interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to mean a reason analogous to those
specifically enumerated in the Rule. Where review is sought on the ground of
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-3-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


discovery of new matter or evidence, such material must be relevant and of such a
nature that, had it been placed before the Court, it might have led to a different
conclusion. Further, the party seeking review must demonstrate that the said
material was not within its knowledge and could not, despite the exercise of due
diligence, have been produced before the Court at the time of the original hearing.
5. Further still, in a review petition, it is not open to this Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion, even if such a
conclusion is otherwise possible. Appreciation of the evidence on record falls
within the domain of the appellate court and once this Court has recorded a finding
of fact and arrived at a conclusion, the same cannot be assailed in review unless it
is demonstrated that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a ground
analogous thereto. Permitting the review petitioner to re-agitate questions relating
to appreciation of evidence would amount to converting the review petition into an
appeal in disguise. A decision, however erroneous, therefore, cannot by itself
furnish a ground for review and may be corrected only in appeal. Furthermore, the
error sought to be reviewed must be self-evident and apparent on the face of the
record, sufficiently grave to be discernible on a mere cursory examination, or arise
from an omission so glaring as to warrant interference in review jurisdiction. A
two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati,
2013 SCC Online SC 714 , speaking through Justice P. Sathasivam, has
summarized the principles regarding the exercise of review jurisdiction in the
following manner:
“16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute :
(A) When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-4-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


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" has been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 Privy Council 112 and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors., (1955)1 SCR 520 , 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. &
Ors., 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 436 : JT 2013(8) SC 275 .
(B) 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.
(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 added)
6. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered
by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Telangana v.
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-5-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died), 2024 INSC 310 , wherein the Court, speaking through
Justice M.M. Sundresh, has observed as follows:
“19. The words "due diligence", though one of fact, places onus heavily
on the one who seeks a review. It has to be seen from the point of view of
a reasonable and prudent man. Though an element of flexibility is given
to any evidence or matter on its discovery, it has to be one which was not
available to the court earlier. It could not have been produced despite due
diligence, meaning thereby that it should have been available and,
therefore, in existence at least at the time of passing the decree.
20. Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court
from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in a re-hearing.
A decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can
only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident
on the face of record. The error should be grave enough to be identified on
a mere cursory look, and an omission so glaring that it requires
interference in the form of a review. Being a creature of the statute, there
is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing. The court has got no role to
involve itself in the process of adjudication for a second time. Instead, it
has to merely examine the existence of an apparent mistake or error. Even
when two views are possible, the court shall not indulge itself by going into
the merits.
21. The material produced, at this stage, should be of such pristine quality
which, if taken into consideration, would have the logical effect of
reversing the judgment. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 indicates
that power of review can be exercised by courts, in three different
situations, but these occasions ought to be read in an analogous manner.
In other words, they should be read in a manner to mean that a restrictive
power has been conferred upon the court . As stated, the words "for any
other sufficient reason" ought to be read in conjunction with the earlier two
categories reiterating the scope. Being a judicial discretion, it has to be
exercised with circumspection and on rare occasions. It is a power to be
exercised by way of an exception, subject to the rigours of the provision.
22. A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis of a review. Sub-clause
(c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908, clearly specifies that the
important matter or evidence produced must have been available at the time
when the decree was passed. This is a matter of rule. On a very rare
occasion, an exception can be carved out. Such an exception can only be
exercised when the said matter or evidence is of unimpeachable quality. It is
not only a new matter or evidence that should be taken into consideration,
but it should also be an important one.
23. While exercising the said power, the court has to first check the
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-6-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


evidentiary value of such discovery, including the circumstances under
which it emanated, particularly when it inherently lacks jurisdiction or the
evidence cannot be made admissible in law and therefore, is not relevant. In
such a circumstance, there is no question of proceeding further in deciding
the review application.”
(Emphasis added)
7. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice
Harsimran Singh Sethi, in its order dated 17.04.2026 passed in RA-CW-167-2026 ,
titled ‘ Union of India and others v. Daljit Singh and another ’, has made the
following pertinent observations in this regard:
“2. The assertion which is being made in the present review application is
that the interpretation given by the Court is incorrect.
3. As per the settled principle of law, the jurisdiction to review an order is
very limited and same is only permissible, in case, any incorrect fact or
discrepancies in facts have been recorded to arrive at a conclusion.
Further, the remedy to file review is permissible, in case, any fact which
was not in the knowledge of the review applicant despite due diligence, has
come to the notice of such review applicant so as to press the same into
review so as to recall the order .
4. In the present case, the review of the order dated 01.12.2025 is being
sought on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Court keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the present case which were brought
on record, is not correct. The said ground is not permissible while
adjudicating upon a review application, as the contention that an order
passed by Court is incorrect can only be agitated in an appeal. Hence, no
review can be filed under the guise of an appeal in order to re-argue the
case so as to convince the Bench hearing the review application to arrive
at a different conclusion .
5. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the
review-applicant 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:-
xx xx xx
6. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar
has been held that
Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-7-
RA-CW No.502 of 2026(O&M)
in CWP-4327-2023


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:-
xx xx xx
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. 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…”
(Emphasis added)
8. Adverting to the case at hand, this Court is of the considered view that
the grounds urged in the present review applications are, in substance, grounds of
appeal. As noticed hereinabove, the jurisdiction of review cannot be invoked under
the guise of an appeal for the purpose of re-arguing the matter or persuading the
Court to take a view different from the one already taken. Under the garb of a
review petition, this Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment or undertake
a fresh re-appreciation of the issues already considered and adjudicated.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground for review is made out.
Accordingly, both the present review applications stand dismissed .
10. Photocopy of order be placed on the file of connected case.


( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
September 08 , 2026. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.11 17:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh