P&H HC Rejects Pitamber Mohan And Others’ Review Plea, Says It Seeks Rehearing Of Dismissed Writ Petition

The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 6 October 2026 dismissing their writ petition, CWP-35973-2025.

They contended that the judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record; the respondents submitted that the application sought a rehearing of the main case.

The Court considered whether the review grounds fell within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

Review is not an appeal in disguise: it corrects patent errors but does not permit rehearing, reassessment of evidence, or substitution of one view for another. The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389; Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1; Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1), (2024) 2 SCC 362; and Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, among other authorities.

The Court found that the review application sought a rehearing of the main writ petition rather than identifying a patent error in the judgment or establishing another permissible review ground.

Applying the settled limits on review jurisdiction, it held that the applicants had shown no mistake apparent on the face of the record and that the asserted basis did not justify reopening the concluded matter.

The Court dismissed the review application in RA-CWP-694-2026.