##PAGE1##

RA-RS-99-2025 in

RSA-3878-2013 -1-

145 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

VS

JASWANT LAL

Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate

for the review applicants/appellants.

**

1. The present review application is filed for reviewing judgment

dated 11.11.2025 passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3878 of

2013.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants contends that the

contentions of the applicants/appellant regarding non-entitlement of

stagnation have been recorded by this Court but no finding has been returned

on the same. Further, Food Corporation of India is not liable to pay the

pension as per the provisions of Employees’ Pension Scheme. He relies

upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Gupta,

Vs. D.N. Mehta and another, 1971(3) SCC 189 to support his contention.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.

4. A perusal of the judgment dated 11.11.2025 passed by this Court

shows that all the contentions of the parties as such are recorded and

judgment and decree dated 07.04.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Patiala, and judgment and decree dated 10.04.2013 passed by learned

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, are upheld as per issues

framed in the civil suit.

5. A bare reading of the review application shows that review

applicants in the garb of present review application is asking for rehearing of

the Regular Second Appeal No.3878 of 2013.

1 of 11

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 09:11:54 :::

RA-RS-99-2025 in

RSA-3878-2013 -2-

6. So far as the judgment as cited by learned counsel for the

applicants/appellants is concerned, the facts of the present review application

are distinguishable since the present regular second appeal is decided on the

basis of the issues framed in the civil suit.

7. The principles as regards the scope and extent of review

jurisdiction of the Court, have been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320 and

were reiterated by this Court as well, in the case of Columbia Holdings Pvt

Ltd and others v. State of Haryana and others RA-CW-357 of 2015. The

principles set out as regards scope and extent of review jurisdiction in

various judicial precedents may be summarized as follows:-

A. Exercise of review jurisdiction is called for only in cases

where one of the following grounds exists:

(i) When there is discovery of new and important

matter or evidence, subject to the fulfillment of the

following conditions:-

a. new matter/evidence discovered is of such nature

which could change the judgment.

b. such new matter/evidence was not within the

knowledge of the party seeking review

c. same could not be produced before court even

after due diligence

(ii) When mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

(iii) When there exists "any other sufficient reason",

which is interpreted as analogous to the aforesaid

two grounds.

B. The review jurisdiction is not exercisable on following

grounds:-

2 of 11

::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2026 09:11:55 :::

RA-RS-99-2025 in

RSA-3878-2013 -3-

(i) Only a "patent error" and not a "mere wrong

decision" can be said to be an error apparent on the

face of record.

(ii) Review is not maintainable unless the material

error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines

its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(iii) The error apparent on the face of the record should

not be an error which has to be fished out and

searched.

(iv) If a matter is required to be first reheard and then

corrected, it would be an appeal under the guise of

review

(v) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not

enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(vi) The power of review is to be exercised for

"correction of mistake" and not for "substitution of

view". Substitution of view would be the province

of an appellate court.

(vii) Merely because a document which was forming

part of the record was not considered at the time of

deciding the case cannot be categorized as a

mistake or error apparent on the face of record.

(