$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28.03.2025 + RC.REV. 325/2023 CHAMAN LAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sopna Rani Padhy, Adv. with Petitioner in-person versus MANISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. for R-1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

REVIEW PET. 68/2025

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by Respondent No.1 seeking review of order dated 04.02.2025 passed by this Court.

2. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner/Respondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1 did not take any adjournment and thus the order dated 04.02.2025 which sets out that the adjournment was taken by Respondent No.1 has an apparent error and should be reviewed.

3. The record reflects that on 23.07.2024, the Registry was directed to supply e-copy of the Trial Court record (TCR) to Respondent No.1 and the matter was listed for arguments on 15.10.2024. It is apposite to extract the relevant part of the order dated 23.07.2024 below:

“3. List on 15.10.2024 for arguments.

4. At the request of counsel for the respondent no. 1, the Registry is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed directed to supply e-copy of LCR to him.

[Emphasis supplied]

4. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.10.2024. The Respondent No.1 on that day stated that he has not received a copy of the Trial Court record. Time was also sought to file written submissions/synopsis. The order dated

15.10.2024 is set out below:

“1. The grievance of the Respondent No.1 is that the Registry is not supplying the copy of the Trial Court Record to him which would enable him to better prepare with the matter. He submits that despite repeated requests, the same has not been provided

2. We fail to understand why the copies of Trial Court Record are not being provided by the Registry.

2.1 Let parties take their respective fresh Pen drives for the same to the Registry for this purpose.

3. Written Submissions of the Petitioner are on record.

3.1 The Respondent shall in the meantime comply with order dated

04.12.2023

4. List on 04.02.2025 at 4PM.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

5. The matter was thereafter listed for hearing on 04.02.2025 at a fixed time. However, on 04.02.2025, the Respondent No.1 made a request for an adjournment.

6. On 04.12.2023, this Court had crystalised the issues in the present Petition. Thereafter, on 23.07.2024, a request was made by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 pursuant to which a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Registry to supply e-copy of TCR to the Respondent No.1.

Thus, the matter was adjourned at the request of Respondent No.1.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

6.1 On 15.10.2024, as well no hearing took place in the matter in view of the fact that the Review Petitioner/Respondent No.1 had again sought time to obtain a copy of the Trial Court Record to enable him to better prepare the matter, as is set out in paragraph 1 of order dated 15.10.2024.

7. Thus, on three dates, 23.07.2024, 15.10.2024 and 04.02.2025, the matter could not be heard and in view of the orders passed previously, this Court deemed it apposite to pass the Order dated 04.02.2025.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, [(2013) 8 SCC 320] has held that the application for review is entertained only under the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 including on account of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with an original hearing unless there is a glaring omission or similar grave error which leads to a miscarriage of justice, the power cannot be exercised. The relevant extract of the Kamlesh Verma case is reproduced below:

“18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overrul