Union Of India And Others vs Shami Chand Mehmi And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
101+102
Decided on : 30.10.2026
RA-CW-660-2026
in
CWP-16397-2020
(O & M)
. .Applicants
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHAMI CHAND MEHMI AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
RA-CW-661-2026
in
CWP-16573-2020
(O & M)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . .Applicants
Versus
SHAMI CHAND MEHMI AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
HON'BLE
PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate
Senior Panel Counsel, with
Ms. Aarti Goyal, Advocate for the applicant- UOI.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present review applications, the prayer of the review
applicant is for reviewing the order dated 27.08.2025 in CWP-16573-2020
and other connected matters passed by this Court on the ground that, in the
said order, the powers of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief has not been
discussed as per the settled principle of law and therefore, keeping in view
the said fact the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2025 is liable to be
reviewed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the review applicant and
have gone through the case file with his able assistance.
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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 facts have been recorded so as to arrive at a conclusion. Further, the
review is only 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 27.08.2025 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 in the
review application, as the ground that the order 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:-
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
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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.
(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 Prishak 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:-
3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing
his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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. 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:-
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 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
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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 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
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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 permitting
the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra
Kumar v. Rambai this Court held: (SCC p. 514, para 6)
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
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
[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.' "
8. 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. Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi.
9. 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 v. 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 T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa on. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque,
(1955) 1 SCR 110 11044 : AIR 1955 SC [233] , it is observed as under
: (SCC p. 244, para 23)
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 selfevident and has to be detected by a process
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
RA-CW-660-2026

CWP-16397-2020
(O & M) and other connected case
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”.
10. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed
hereinbefore, the review application which has been filed by the applicant is
only to re-argue the case so as to contend that the findings recorded by the
Court is not correct, hence the review petition 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(s) are dismissed.
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case(s).
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
VIKAS SURI
( )
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RIYA
2026.11.03 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document