Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
MS JOGINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11128/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bharat Bagga, Ms. Mansi Asija
For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Ms. Harshita Nathravi
The court reiterated that review applications cannot be used to reargue previously adjudicated matters and require solid grounds for reconsideration.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Application for recall of order - Petitioner sought recall of order without valid grounds - Court emphasized that review cannot be confused with appeal, reiterating that old arguments cannot reopen concluded adjudications. (Paras 3-8)
(B) Principles governing review - Review is maintainable if new evidence is discovered, or if there is an apparent mistake; a mere disagreement with a decision does not suffice. (Paras 20-20.2)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner applied to recall a prior order but failed to show any grounds for review. Respondents confirmed compliance with the earlier order, and no new prayers for interest were made.
Findings of Court:
The court highlighted that review powers are limited and cannot be used merely to re-examine matters that have been adjudicated.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the grounds presented warranted a review of the earlier order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the application did not meet the necessary requirements for a review as the arguments presented had already been considered and dismissed.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for recalling order not satisfied. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding interest not initially submitted. (Para 3) |
| 3. principles surrounding review applications. (Para 6) |
| 4. court dismissed the application. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
% 26.08.2025 CM APPL. 26753/2025 [Recall of order dated 17.02.2025]
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 17.02.2025.
2. Issue Notice.
2.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents accepts Notice and submits that the order dated 17.02.2025 has been complied with by the Respondents. It is submitted that the payments were credited to the Petitioner as was directed by the order dated 17.02.2025, and that no further directions are requisite.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that there is no ground for recall of order made in the Application, which in essence, prays that the Petitioner be awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date that he was due.
4. A perusal of the prayers in the present Petition show that no prayer for interest was made therein. In any event, on 17.02.2025, no such submission was made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner either.
5. The present Application is in the nature of a review. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been unable to show any grounds to review the order dated 17.02.2025.
6. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be exercised by the Court merely to re-examine a judgment which has already been examined by this Court. 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 overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)
“11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of ‘second innings’ which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.”
19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to ch
