P&H HC Condoned Union’s 589-Day Review Delay, But Rejected Its Bid To Re-Argue Ex-Soldier’s Case

The Union of India and others sought review of the High Court’s order dated January 14, 2025, in CWP-35304-2024.

They also applied to condone a 589-day delay in filing the review application. The Court allowed the delay application, noting that it was supported by an affidavit.

When asked to identify any incorrect fact in the original order, counsel for the review applicants was unable to do so.

The Court dismissed the review application.

Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit review on limited grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear a case or substitute a different view on the merits.

The Court relied on S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, Civil Appeal Nos. 1167–1170 of 2023, decided February 24, 2023; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715; and Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1, among other authorities, for the restricted scope of review.

The Court first condoned the delay because the applicants’ averments were supported by an affidavit.

On the merits, it noted that the original order had been dictated in open court in the presence of the petitioners’ counsel and that counsel could identify no incorrect fact in that order.

Applying the settled limits on review, the Court treated the application as an attempt to challenge the correctness of the original findings and re-argue the case, rather than to establish an apparent error or another recognised review ground.

It held that no ground for review had been established and dismissed RA-CW-624-2026.