IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the review jurisdiction is limited and can only be allowed on grounds of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that the review cannot be used as a disguise for appeal and cannot be allowed to reargue questions already addressed and decided.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as review petitioners) have sought review of common order dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court in Execution Petitions No. 5 of 2023 and 19 of 2023. The review petitioners have made prayers to the following effects:

“a. Review para 35 of the order dated 17.11.2023, by clarifying that the possession of the built up property in question i.e. Wildflower Hall, Charabra Shimla and land is not liable to be resumed by the State of H.P.

b. Delete para/directions contained in para 38(i) of the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 i.e. Annexure A-1.”

2. Since, the review has been sought in respect of paragraphs No.35 and 38(i) of order dated 17.11.2023, it will be relevant to reproduce the said paragraphs, which read as under:-

“35. Since, the award grants right to the State to resume and take possession of the property immediately on non-compliance of the obligation by claimant No. 1 within the stipulated period and such option has been reserved in favour of claimant No. 2, it is for claimant No. 2 to decide on its option and in case it so desires, it is free to resume and take possession of the property immediately. In case the State Government does not choose to avail such option, the claimant No. 1 is to take steps with respect to cancellation of conveyance deed dated 06.02.1997 and updation of revenue records of rights and thereafter to immediately take steps for execution of lease deed.

38. In the first instance, the parties to show their respective compliances as under:-

(i) Claimant No.2 to reveal its option whether State of H.P. intends to resume the property by taking its possession in terms of the Award.”

3. The grounds for review as mentioned in the review petition can be summarized as under:-

(i) The respondents/State of H.P. had neither come forward nor had made any prayer for resumption of possession either by way of prayers made in Execution Petition No. 19 of 2023 or reply to objections submitted in execution petition No. 5 of 2023.

(ii) The State of Himachal Pradesh had admitted that it was not entitled to seek reversion of property of “Wildflower Hall”.

(iii) The review petitioners had expressed their intent and willingness to abide by and comply with the award dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Arbitrator and in evidence thereof a communication dated 18.10.2022 addressed by Shri R. Shankar, President Corporate Affairs EIH Ltd to the Principal Secretary, Tourism and Civil Aviation Government of Himachal Pradesh along with reminders dated 03.12.2022, 22.12.2022 and 12.01.2023, which proved that the review petitioners had duly complied with the terms of the award within the stipulated period of three months and by such act of the review petitioners, the right available to the State of Himachal Pradesh to take possession of the hotel Wildflower Hall on automatic revival of resolution of the Board of Directors and Government decision dated 07.03.2002 stood foreclosed.

4. This Court is seized of Execution Petitions No. 5 of 2023 and 19 of 2023. Execution Petition No. 5 of 2023 has been filed by the review petitioners, whereas Execution Petition No. 19 of 2023 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. By way of these execution petitions, both the sides have sought the execution of award dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Arbitrator. Indisputably, the award of the Arbitrator has attained finality. Though, the review petitioners had challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and having remained unsuccessful by assailing the order in appeal under Section 37 of the Act ibid, the appeal of the review petitioners also stands dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.10.2022.

5. In Execution Petition No.5 of 2023, the State of Himachal Pradesh preferred objections and in Execution Petition No.19 of 2023, the review petitioners preferred objections. By way of common order dated 17.11.2023, sought to be