Nancy vs Haryana Public Service Commission And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116
RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026
Date of Decision: 31.10.2026
NANCY
...Applicant
Versus
HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent-HPSC.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)
1. Present review application has been filed for the review of
judgment dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Court in LPA-2447-2026 by
which, the said writ petition was dismissed.
2. It is to be noticed that the scope of review is very narrow and
can only be entertained in case any wrong fact has been made the basis for
the conclusion arrived at.
3. On being asked to point out any wrong fact, learned counsel for
the applicant has not been able to point out any such incorrect fact relied
upon by the Coordinate Bench while passing the order under appeal dated
31.08.2026.
4. The only endeavour of the learned counsel for the applicant is
to re-argue the case under the garb of review so as to convince this Bench to
arrive at a different conclusion than the one already arrived at.
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -2-
5. Further, as per settled principle of law, an incorrect order can
only be challenged in an appeal and not in review petition. 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. 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.
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -3-
(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 & others, (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 within the province of a Court of appeal. Relevant
paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
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
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -4-

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. 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
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -5-
in disguise. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
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
self-evident 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 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) 458 458;; 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Ram Sahu
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -6-
(Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat
and others (2021) 13 SCC 1, held as under:-
9. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper
for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of section
114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for
review when a person considering himself aggrieved
either by a decree or by an order of Court from which
appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where
there is no provision for appeal against an order and
decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as
the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass
the decree. From the bare reading of section 114 CPC, it
appears that the said substantive power of review under
section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the
condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor
the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for
exercising its power to review its decision. However, an
order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed
grounds mentioned in Order 47 , R u le 1 CPC, which has
been elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application
for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and
the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the
definite limit mentioned in Order 47 , Rule 1 CPC itself.
The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent
power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in
the guise of power of review.
10. Considered in the light of the aforesaid settled
position, we find that the High Court has clearly
overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under
Order 47 , Rule 1 CPC. No ground as envisaged under
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -7-
Order 47 , Rule 1 CPC has been made out for the purpose
of reviewing the observations made in para 20. It is
required to be noted and as evident from para 20, the
High Court made observations in para 20 with respect to
possession of the plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence
on record more particularly the deposition of the plaintiff
(PW1) and his witness PW2 and on appreciation of the
evidence, the High Court found that the plaintiff is in
actual possession of the said house. Therefore, when the
observation with respect to the possession of the plaintiff
were made on appreciation of evidence/material on
record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent
on the face of proceedings which were required to be
reviewed in exercise of powers under Order 47 , Rule 1
CPC. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
High Court while making observations in para 20 with
respect to plaintiff in possession also took note of the fact
that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 – respondents herein
themselves filed an application being I.A. No.1267 of
2012 which was filed under section 151 CPC for getting
the possession of the disputed house from the appellants
and the said application was dismissed as withdrawn.
Therefore, the High Court took note of the fact that even
according to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 the appellants
were in possession of the disputed house. Therefore, in
light of the fact situation, the High Court has clearly
erred in deleting para 20 in exercise of powers under
Order 47 , Rule 1 CPC more particularly in the light of
the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions.”
10. Even otherwise, the petition was disposed of keeping in view
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RA-LP-103-2026 IN LPA-2447-2026 -8-
the application moved by the review applicant, seeking consideration of her
case in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP-
1262-2025 , titled as Pardeep Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and
another, which judgment has already been set aside in LPA-1397-2025 titled
as ‘ Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Pardeep Kumar and others;
against which even SLP (C) Nos.35944-35968-2025 titled as ‘Naveen
Kumar and others etc. vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others
etc . has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Therefore, the review applicant cannot now contend that her case is not
covered by the said judgment.
12. Keeping in view the settled principle of law noticed herein
before as well as the fact that no factual discrepancy has been pointed out in
the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Court, the present review
application is hereby dismissed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(MINDERJEET YADAV)
JUDGE
October 31, 2026
Nisha-1
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document