HPSC Applicant’s Review Fails: P&H HC Finds No Factual Error And Notes The Ruling She Relied On Was Set Aside On Appeal

In brief

The question

1. Whether the review applicant established an error apparent on the record or another recognised ground for review of the judgment dated 31 August 2026.

The court held

The Court held that no ground for review had been established.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the review application.

01Facts

Nancy sought review of the High Court’s judgment dated 31 August 2026 dismissing her appeal.

¶ 1–4 · p. 1

The Court asked her counsel to identify any incorrect fact on which that judgment relied; counsel identified none, and the Court considered the application an attempt to reargue the case.

¶ 1–4 · p. 1

The Court also noted that the earlier proceedings had been disposed of in light of Nancy’s request for consideration under Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, but that judgment had since been set aside in appeal, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the related special leave petitions.

¶ 10 · p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the review applicant established an error apparent on the record or another recognised ground for review of the judgment dated 31 August 2026.

¶ 2–4 · p. 1 · ¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–7

ii.2. Whether the applicant could use review proceedings to reargue the case or obtain consideration under the Pardeep Kumar judgment after it had been set aside.

¶ 10 · p. 8

03Law Applied

Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern review; review is a limited remedy and is not an appeal in disguise.

¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–7

It may be exercised for discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, for an error apparent on the face of the record, or on an analogous sufficient ground; an error requiring a process of reasoning is not ordinarily apparent, and review cannot be used merely to correct an allegedly erroneous decision on the merits.

¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–7

The Court relied on S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan (Civil Appeal Nos. 1167–1170 of 2023, decided 24 February 2023), Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, Paramjit Singh through LRs v. Gurdial Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine P 1637, and Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1.

¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114 Section 151

04Reasoning

The applicant did not identify any factual discrepancy or error apparent in the judgment under review; her submissions instead sought a different conclusion on the merits, which would amount to rehearing the case beyond the limits of review jurisdiction.

¶ 2–4 · p. 1 · ¶ 12 · p. 8

Further, the earlier judgment relied on Pardeep Kumar, which had been set aside on appeal, and the related SLPs had been dismissed. The Court therefore rejected the contention that Nancy’s case remained covered by that judgment.

¶ 10 · p. 8