Review jurisdiction under Order 47 CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a means to reargue previously decided issues.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The Ambuja Cements Limited (for short, the “ACL”) has preferred these review petitions against common judgement dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in CMPMO Nos. 66, 51, 69, 68, 67, 49 and 65 of 2024. All these review petitions are being decided by a common order as identical questions of fact and law are involved.

2. The ACL has been impleaded as one of the defendants in seven separate suits filed by the 1st respondents herein before the court of learned Civil Judge, Arki. The ACL is running its Cement Manufacturing Plant at Darlaghat in District Solan. The“Ambuja-Darla-Kashlog-Mangu Transport Co-operative Society (for short the ‘Society’) has been impleaded as the 2nd defendant in all said suits. The Society has been formed by the persons affected by the Cement Plant of ACL.

3. Parties, hereafter shall be referred to by their same status as they hold in the original Court.

4. The cause of action as pleaded in the said suits is common which allegedly has arisen from the action of ACL in placing check on the plying of trucks of plaintiffs. In other words, the trucks of plaintiffs were barred from being operated for the business of ACL. Plaintiffs claimed their rights to operate their respective trucks for the business of defendant by virtue of being members of the Society, which is registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968.

5. Plaintiffs claim themselves to be the affected persons on account of establishment of cement manufacturing plant of the ACL.

6. It has been alleged that the society and the ACL have a binding contract whereby the members of the society have a right of plying their respective trucks for the business of ACL.

7. Alongwith the suits, the plaintiffs also filed applications for interim injunction seeking to restrain ACL from placing any check or fetter in plying of their trucks by society for transportation of raw material or final produce manufactured by the ACL.

8. Learned Trial Court had allowed the applications of the plaintiffs for interim injunction and ACL was restrained from causing obstruction in the transport business of plaintiffs and also from implementing the orders of check put on the vehicles of the plaintiffs till final adjudication of the main suit.

9. The orders passed by learned Trial Court were assailed by plaintiffs by filing appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Appellate Court has also affirmed the orders passed by learned Trial Court.

10. Thereafter, the ACL sought intervention of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions, so filed, by the ACL before this Court were decided vide common judgement dated 08.05.2024 and the orders passed by learned Appellate Court as also the learned Trial Court were affirmed.

11. By way of instant petitions, the above noted judgement dated 08.05.2024, passed by this Court is sought to be reviewed.

12. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the defendant has contended that the ACL had blocked/stopped the trucks of plaintiffs on 28.08.2023 i.e. before the filing of the suits and accordingly the ACL had raised an argument before this Court that the suit and application for injunction simpliciter were not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction, but this Court had not considered such plea.

13. During the hearing of these matters learned Senior Counsel for ACL filed an application in Review Petition No. 59 of 2024, to place on record following additional documents:-

“(i) Copy of judgement dated 10.07.2024, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 328 of 2024 and other connected matters titled as Ambuja Cement Limited Vs.Dinesh Kumar and another;

(ii) copy of order dated 08.11.2024, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24467 of 2024.”

14. On the basis of these judgments, it has been contended that since a co-ordinate Bench of this