Review jurisdiction is limited to clear errors; it cannot be used to challenge merits of a decision, emphasizing that disagreement does not constitute grounds for review.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3760/2024, seeking review of the judgement dated 23^rd December, 2024, passed in a batch of connected matters, i.e., CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024, W.P.(C) 14960/2023, W.P.(C) 3760/2024 and W.P.(C) 6850/2024, by way of which this Court had allowed the demolition, reconstruction and rehabilitation in relation to „Signature View Apartments‟.

2. The review petitioner had filed the petition, W.P.(C) 3760/2024, challenging the authority of Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), to carry out demolition and re-construction of Signature View Apartments, and further sought for conducting of repair works, instead of demolition and reconstruction of the Signature View Apartments.

3. The review petition has been filed on the ground that this Court in its judgement dated 23^rd December, 2024, has overlooked and ignored factual and legal submissions placed on record by the petitioner in his writ petition. It is also the case of the review petitioner that this Court has not dealt with the genesis of the matter, i.e., conspiracy hatched by DDA officials, along with the members of the Resident Welfare Association (“RWA”) of the Signature View Apartments, and fraud has been played upon this Court by the said parties. Further, the report dated 19^th November, 2022 submitted by Sh. Shashank Bishnoi from Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Delhi is void and illegal, as the same was made by him in his individual private capacity, and not through proper channel. Therefore, it is the contention of the review petitioner that the reliance of this Court on the said report given by the aforesaid Structural Engineer from IIT, Delhi, is erroneous.

4. The review petitioner further avers that the petitioner herein was not made a party in W.P.(C) 6850/2024, titled as Shakuntala Devi & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., on account of which the review petitioner was unable to rebut the veracity of the averments made in the said petition. Thus, it is submitted that there exists a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record with respect to the judgement dated 23^rd December, 2024, as there was no order of clubbing of all the petitions, and therefore, the common judgment pronounced in all the petitions, has seriously prejudiced the rights and contentions of the review petitioner, raised in the petition filed by him, i.e., W.P.(C) 3760/2024.

5. On the other hand, the DDA opposed the review petition and further justified the engagement of Mr. Shashank Bishnoi from IIT Delhi, and the report received from him.

6. At the outset, this Court notes that a review jurisdiction is restricted and the scope of a review is limited to there being a clear mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Furthermore, in a review petition, the Court cannot enter into re-appreciation of facts/questions which have categorically been dealt with by the Court in the judgment under review, nor can it deal with bare statements unsupported by any evidence or proof, especially, when the said statement on the face of it, are questions which are disputed. A court cannot rehear a matter like an appeal, as a review petition has a limited purpose.

7. Elucidating upon the scope of a review, the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Versus Mayawati and Others , (2013) 8 SCC 320 observed as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could no