Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for re-hearing on merits or discovery of evidence available through due diligence.

The petitioner originally filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing boundary walls and dispossessing him from land in Village Hauz Rani

On 07.10.2016, a Single Judge disposed of the petition, recording that the petitioner’s ownership of 15 biswas each in Khasra Nos. 215 (min) and 216 (min) was not in dispute based on revenue records authenticated by the Land and Building Department

In 2025, approximately eight years later, the DDA filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to recall the 2016 judgment

The DDA contended that subsequent discovery of documents, including Acquisition Offers from 1960 and 1962 and a 1979 notification, revealed the land had been transferred to the DDA and that the petitioner’s title was not valid

1. Whether the application for recall of the judgment is maintainable or should be treated as a review petition.

2. Whether the discovery of documents existing in the DDA’s own records constitutes a valid ground for review under the principle of "due diligence."

3. Whether the judgment dated 07.10.2016 suffers from an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying its reversal in review jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principles governing "recall" versus "review," noting that a recall is permitted only for inherent lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or procedural mistakes like non-service

For review, the Court relied on Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Article 226 of the Constitution, which permit review only upon the discovery of new evidence (which could not be produced despite due diligence), a mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds

It further emphasized that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision on merits

The Court first clarified that the DDA’s application was essentially a review petition disguised as a recall application

It noted a significant, unexplained delay of eight years in filing the application

On the merits of the review, the Court found that the "newly discovered" documents were always within the DDA's custody and knowledge; thus, the DDA failed the "due diligence" test required by law for introducing new evidence at the review stage

Regarding the DDA's argument that a Writ Court cannot declare title, the Court held that even if the 2016 judgment was legally erroneous, such a grievance is the province of an appellate court, not a review court

The Court concluded there was no "error apparent on the face of the record" because the 2016 findings were based on the documents and concessions available at that time, and any reversal would now require a "long debate and process of reasoning," which is outside the scope of review

The Court ruled that the DDA could not seek review based on documents that were admittedly in its possession at the time of the original proceedings

The application was also found liable for dismissal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay of eight years

Relief for recall/review of the judgment dated 07.10.2016 was denied