Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to supplement original orders with fresh reasoning or re-appreciate case contentions.

The Petitioner is a cooperative house building society.

Respondent No. 3 (R3), a private company, purchased property No. 76 Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, from a third party and applied for society membership on January 11, 2019

The Petitioner rejected the application on January 30, 2019, on two grounds: (i) ineligibility under Byelaw 5(1); and (ii) disqualification under Rule 20(ii) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies (DCS) Rules, 2007, as R3’s objects included dealing in immovable properties

On appeal under Section 91 of the DCS Act, the Registrar (R2) directed the society to transfer membership to R3

The Petitioner sought revision before the Financial Commissioner (R1).

On December 9, 2021, R1 dismissed the revision but directed R3 to delete the "real estate dealing" clause from its Memorandum and Articles of Association to facilitate membership

The Petitioner’s subsequent review petition was dismissed on January 12, 2024, with R1 supplementing the original reasoning

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the eligibility of an applicant for membership in a cooperative society must be determined based on the facts existing on the date of the application or based on subsequent remedial developments

2. Whether the revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) exceeded its jurisdiction by passing a conditional order based on concessions not accepted by the Petitioner

3. Whether the review jurisdiction was properly exercised when the authority supplemented its original order with new reasoning

The court examined Section 11 of the DCS Act, which permits societies to frame byelaws regarding membership eligibility

It referred to Section 22, which lists persons eligible for membership (including body corporates) but subject to the society’s byelaws and government-notified disqualifications

Rule 20(ii) of the DCS Rules, 2007, was cited as an express disqualification for those dealing in the purchase or sale of immovable properties

Regarding the scope of review, the court relied on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025), which mandates that review is limited to "errors apparent on the face of record" and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or supplement a judgment with new reasons

The Court observed that membership in a cooperative society is not an automatic legal attachment to the title of property under the Transfer of Property Act

The Petitioner was within its rights under Byelaw 5(1) and Rule 20(ii) to reject the application because, on the date of application, R3’s constitutional documents authorized it to trade in real estate

The Court found that R1 committed a jurisdictional error by passing a "workable order" that directed the Petitioner to grant membership contingent upon R3 amending its MoA/AoA

This amounted to correcting a disqualification retrospectively, which is not permitted under revisional jurisdiction.

The Court critiqued the review order, noting that R1 improperly "re-wrote" the judgment by supplementing it with extensive legal reasoning to defend the original order, which exceeds the narrow confines of review jurisdiction intended only for patent errors

The High Court quashed the orders dated December 9, 2021 (Revision) and January 12, 2024 (Review)

The matter was remanded to the Financial Commissioner (R1) to decide the revision petition afresh on its merits, without being influenced by previous findings

The parties were directed to appear before the revisional authority on April 27, 2026, with a request to dispose of the matter within six months