Union Of India Cannot Use Review To Re-Argue 2025 Order, P&H High Court Says In Dismissing Two Petitions

The Union of India and others sought review of the High Court’s order dated 27 August 2025 in CWP-16573-2020 and connected matters.

They argued that the order had not considered the powers of the Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief in accordance with settled law.

The Court heard counsel for the applicants and considered the review applications under the established limits of review jurisdiction.

Under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it is not an appeal or a means to substitute one view for another.

An error that requires a process of reasoning to identify is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court also relied on S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, and other authorities for the principle that review jurisdiction cannot be used to rehear or correct an allegedly erroneous decision on its merits.

The applicants’ contention—that the earlier order was incorrect because it did not discuss the relevant powers of the Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief—challenged the Court’s conclusions on the merits.

The Court held that such a challenge could be pursued in appeal, but did not establish an error apparent or another permissible review ground.

Accepting the contention would require the Court to re-argue the case and reconsider its earlier view, which review jurisdiction does not permit.

Any pending civil miscellaneous application was disposed of, and a photocopy of the order was directed to be placed on the file of the connected case.