JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

The present review applications have been filed for review of the order dated 12.05.2021 by which the writ petitions filed by the Workmen, were dismissed. Against the said order, the Workmen have already filed LPAs, which are pending.

2. The present review applications have been filed by the Bank on the ground that the findings which have been recorded by the Court while passing the order dated 12.05.2021, are not correct.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submits that in case the record was destroyed by the Workmen, no relief could have been granted to the Workmen by the Tribunal on the ground that the record was not produced so as to draw an adverse inference.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the review-applicant and have gone through the record with her able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction of the Court in review petition is very limited. In review, the judgment cannot be challenged on the ground that the said judgment is incorrect. The said grievance can only be raised before the appellate forum in appeal and not before the Court deciding the petition. The present review applications have been filed on the ground that the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing the order dated 12.05.2021 is incorrect. Against 'incorrect' order as being alleged by the review-applicant, the review is not maintainable.

6. The scope of the review has already been discussed in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein, it has been held that a review petition cannot be filed to re-argue the case and its scope is only limited to any incorrect fact noticed on the basis of which the judgment has been given. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court illustrating the said position of law in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

'5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:

7. Further, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, wherein, it has been held that it is only on the discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made but review petition cannot be filed on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same will be province of a Court of appeal. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-

'3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-l and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second