The court affirmed that review applications must demonstrate due diligence in presenting new evidence and cannot rehash issues previously settled unless a patent error is shown, reflecting the need for finality in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The review application is taken out by the unsuccessful litigant challenging the judgment/order dated 18^th June, 2024 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1124 of 2022 taking multiple grounds, some of which were not argued at the time of the disposal of the appeal though claimed to have been taken and some are taken for the first time on the basis of discovery of new and important document subsequently unearthed by the petitioner.

2. Though the review application is filed by the same Advocate on record but by engaging different Senior Counsel, the review application is sought to be argued. There appears to be confusion in the mind of the review petitioner on assimilation of the facts and the arguments advanced at the time of disposal of the writ appeal and, therefore, we feel it prudent to adumbrate the arguments advanced in the review application to ensure eradication of any such confusion arose subsequent to this judgment.

3. The points argued in the review jurisdiction are summarized as under:

Firstly, the Court while taking into consideration the fact whether the appellant/opposite party No.1 in the instant application can claim the status of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and a vital provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GST Act” for short) i.e., Section 2 (119) thereof was never taken into account.

Secondly, the factum of registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act” for short) was never communicated to the petitioner by the appellant/opposite party No.1 herein and, therefore, it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the MSMED Act by treating the petitioner in such capacity.

Thirdly, subsequent to the judgment having delivered, the petitioner came to know of a Notification dated 24th January, 2024 by virtue whereof a scheme was framed, which postulates that “works contract” is outside the purview of the MSMED Act. Lastly, this court has delivered a judgment on 20th September, 2025 in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.30966 of 2024 in which the appellant was arrayed as opposite party, wherein it is held that the provision of MSMED Act is not applicable. It is submitted that the award passed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under the said Act is without jurisdiction and, therefore, to be set aside.

4. The aforementioned four points taken by Mr. Gautam Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel needs scrutiny on the parameter of the scope and the jurisdiction exercised by the Court while dealing with an application for review. The points have been coined and/or engineered at the time of argument and eloquently advanced before this court in pursuit of seeking review as the judgment dated 18^th June, 2024 contains a patent error and on the discovery of a new and important document, the same cannot occupy the space in the legal field.

4.1. The rhetoric and the legal jargon of the learned Senior Counsel invited the Court to deeply ponder upon the aforesaid aspects to find out whether any case is made out in the review application or same being a pure question of law can be permitted to be agitated in the review jurisdiction.

5. Before we embark our journey on the terrain of scope and jurisdiction exercised by the Court in dealing with an application for review, the broad principles are required to be recapitulated and/or restated. So far as the writ Courts are concerned, though they are not strictly guided by the provisions of