A review petition cannot be used to re-argue the entire writ petition as an original proceeding, and the petitioner must demonstrate that the new document could have altered the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

REVIEW PET. 235/2022

1. This review petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 04.05.2021. After the writ petition was dismissed, Petitioner approached the Division Bench challenging the judgment in appeal being LPA No. 330/2021, wherein a submission was made by the Petitioner that there is a crucial document in his favour which would evidence that his appointment with Central Electronics Ltd./Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the `CEL') was `promotion' and he could not be placed on probation at the time of appointment. As the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Division Bench indicates, Petitioner had conceded that the document was not filed along with the writ petition and was not a part of the writ record. He therefore withdrew the appeal with liberty to file a review petition and the Division Bench directed that the time lost in appeal will not come in the way of computing limitation for filing the review petition. Be it noted that Petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay, perhaps on an erroneous understanding of the order of the Division Bench that the Court had condoned the delay. Be that as it may, since the Petitioner had approached the Division Bench, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned as there was no objection on this count by the Respondents.

2. Before proceeding to examine the contentions raised by the Petitioner in support of his plea that the judgment needs to be reviewed, it would be pertinent to delineate the scope and ambit of interference by a Court at the time of deciding the review petition and for this I may first refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, where the Supreme Court held that review literally and even judicially means re-consideration/re-examination and primarily the philosophy inherent in a review is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, yet in the realm of law, Courts have leaned strongly in favour of finality of decisions which are legally and properly delivered. Supreme Court also noted that exceptions, both statutorily and judicially, have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. In Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Supreme Court while affirming that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistakes, penned a word of caution that it cannot be used as a tool to substitute a view and review proceedings cannot be decided as an appeal in disguise. The Supreme Court also ruled that mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review and analysed the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which provides that any person aggrieved by a judgment/order/decree from which no appeal is allowed or where appeal is allowed but has not been preferred, can be filed by any person aggrieved and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when judgment/decree/order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order made against him, may apply for a review of the judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. The expression `any other sufficient reason' was interpreted to mean a reason sufficient on grounds mentioned or at least analogous to those specified under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, as held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and Others, AIR 1922 PC 112.

3. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, (1955) 1 SCR 250, the Supreme Court held that `an error apparent on the face of the proceedings' is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law i.e. an error which is a patent error and not a mere w