The court affirmed that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must demonstrate grounds such as patent errors; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings does not substantiate a review.

ORDER :

The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by a person claiming himself to be an interested party in a property which was subject matter of W.P. No.145/2023 decided by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023 alleging that though he had accrued certain rights in the property in question as the sale-deed has been executed in his favour, but without impleading him as a party the respondents have obtained an innocuous order of directing the respondent no.3 therein to decide the matter regarding mutation pending before it in case no.1024/2020-21(B-121).

2. Review of the order dated 27.01.2023 has been sought on the ground that earlier with regard to same subject-matter one W.P. No.4731/2013 was filed by the predecessor in title of the review petitioner which was admitted on 07.01.2014 and, thereafter, due to pleading no instructions by the counsel the said writ petition got dismissed on 09.07.2018 and as there was stay operating in the said order in favor of the predecessor in title of the review petitioner, in wake of the order impugned herein the said right is getting frustrated as no opportunity could be availed by the review petitioner to make submissions either before this Court or the revenue authorities, thus, the order Annexure A/1 dated 27.01.2023 passed in W.P. No.145/2023 needs to be reviewed and recalled.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while placing reliance on para 89 of the judgment passed in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi and Another vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 757 , has argued that while referring to another judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. reported in 2013 (8) SCC 337 , the Court delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not be maintainable which are as under:-

“(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import, (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice, (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error, (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be aground for review, (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched, (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

4. Apart from the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent/State has also argued that the writ petition no.4731/2013 on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking review was dismissed on 09.07.2018 on the ground of no instructions pleaded by the counsel and no efforts have been made by the review petitioner to get the said order recalled and as such the rights of the predecessor in title of the review petitioner had already been curtailed and, thus, the present review petitioner has no right left to agitate in the present matter, therefore, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the record as well as the judgment c