A review application is not permissible for the purpose of a re-hearing or to introduce fresh averments that were not agitated in the original proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Mr. G.H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appears for the State -respondents.

2. The request for adjournment in the review matter has been made on the premise that the learned Senior Counsel has agreed to argue the review application and he is indisposed today.

3. The review application has been filed seeking for recall/review of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2026, which was rendered by us when the matter was argued by Ms. Ratna Vora, learned advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ratna Vora, learned advocate for the review applicant is present in the Court. She, however, refuses to argue the review application on the premise that the learned Senior Counsel has agreed to argue the matter for review.

4. We do not appreciate this submission of the learned Counsel for the review applicant. Moreover all the averments in the review application are fresh addition to the averments made in the writ petition, which cannot be permitted to be agitated at the stage of review. It is settled law that re hearing within the scope of review is impermissible. The present review application is accordingly, dismissed. No order as costs.

5. In the end, on the request made by Ms. Ratna Vora, learned Counsel appearing for the review applicant, four weeks’ further time from today is granted to deposit the cost imposed in the judgment and order dated 25.06.2026. However, in case of failure of the petitioner to make the deposit within the time given herein, the cost amount shall be realized as arrears of land revenue.