Ram Niwas vs Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran And Others

-1-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

104
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026


Ram Niwas .....Petitioner
VERSUS

Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate and
Ms. Sunanda, Advocate
for the applicant/respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate and
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate
for the non-applicant/petitioner.
*

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CM-15789-CWP of 2026
Instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 135 days in
filing of the review application.
Heard.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application as well as
arguments addressed, the same is allowed. Delay of 135 days in filing of the
application for review is condoned.

CM-15791-CWP of 2026
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 CPC is for
placing on record Annexures A-1 to A-8 for proper adjudication of the review
OMKAR SINGH
application.
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-2-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


In view of the facts mentioned in the application as well as arguments
addressed, the same is allowed and Annexure A-1 to A-8 are taken on record subject
to just exceptions. Filing of certified copies thereof is exempted.

RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M)
1. The present review application has been filed under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of
the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.7274 of 2026.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that while allowing
the writ petition, this Court had taken into consideration the award dated
01.03.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Panipat, whereby the petitioner was granted continuity of service. However,
the said award was subsequently modified by this Court in CWP-6130-2002, titled
as Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v.
Ram Niwas and another (Annexure A-2). It is submitted that in the said
proceedings, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he would not
claim continuity of service for the period from 1996 to 2002 or back wages, and
the award was modified to that extent. Learned counsel further submits that the
case of the petitioner for regularization is not covered under any regularization
policy issued by the Government of Haryana.
3. Per contra , learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner submits
that under the guise of the present review application, the applicant/respondents are
seeking to re-agitate the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review
jurisdiction. He refers to para 2 of the judgment dated 11.03.2026, wherein the
award dated 01.03.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal was noticed and it was
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-3-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


specifically taken into consideration that the petitioner had been taken back in
service on 14.06.2002 and had continuously been working as a Chowkidar since
then, which was not disputed by the applicant/respondents No.1 to 3. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a Class-IV employee, has once
again been compelled to approach this Court and incur litigation expenses,
therefore, the review applicants deserve to be burdened with exemplary costs.
4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance.
5. 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” have been
interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court to mean a reason analogous to those
specifically enumerated in the Rule. Where review is sought on the ground of
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.
6. 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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-4-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


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
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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-5-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


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)

7. 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.
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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-6-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


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
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)

8. 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:
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-7-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


“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
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:-
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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-8-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


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)

9. Admittedly, in the present case, the non-applicant/petitioner has been
working continuously as Chowkidar since 14.06.2002. The writ petition was
allowed by this Court taking into consideration his continuous service from the said
date and in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dharam
Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 and
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 as well as the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025
NCPHHC 65364 . The modification of the award dated 01.03.2001, insofar as the
petitioner had given up his claim for continuity of service for the period from 1996
to 2002 and for back wages, does not affect the material consideration on which
the judgment dated 11.03.2026 was founded i.e., his undisputed continuous service
from 14.06.2002 onwards. Thus, it is neither a case of concealment or withholding
of any material fact by the petitioner nor is any error apparent on the face of the
record demonstrated so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction. It may also be
noticed that the present review application has been filed through a counsel
different from the one who had appeared and argued the writ petition on behalf of
the applicant/respondents No.1 to 3.
10. In view of the above, no ground for review of the judgment dated
11.03.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.7274 of 2026 is made out.
OMKAR SINGH
Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed. Applicant/respondents
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-9-
RA-CW No.517 of 2026(O&M) in
CWP No.7274 of 2026


No.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the judgment dated 11.03.2026 within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Having regard to the fact that the non-applicant/petitioner is a Class-
IV employee and has been compelled to defend a second round of litigation despite
there being no error apparent on the face of the record, this Court deems it
appropriate to impose cost of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) upon the
applicant/respondents No.1 to 3, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In the
event of non-compliance, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application/petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for the initiation
of contempt proceedings.
12. Pending misc. application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.

( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
September 07 , 2026. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.10 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh