IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 Manish Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for the applicant/respondent-HSVP.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Hanima Grewal, Advocate and for respondent No.5 and applicant (in EA-5-2026).

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-322-CWP-2026 in RA-CW-18-2026 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 250 days in filing the review application. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 250 days in filing the review application is condoned.

RA-CW-18-2026 in C WP-26692-2021

1. The present review application has been filed for recalling the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by this Court by which, the writ petition CWP-

26692-2021 was dismissed.

2. In the present review petition, the grievance of the review petitioner is that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the pleadings put forth, the relief granted in particular paragraph No.45 is not correct and, therefore, the judgment which is incorrect, is liable to be reviewed.

3. Further, on the basis of the pleadings and circumstances raised in the review petition, the Learned Senior Counsel attempt is to re-argue the case so as to convince this Court to reach at a different conclusion than the one arrived at in the impugned order, the review of which is being sought.

4. We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant/petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction of this Court in review is very limited and the same can only be undertaken in case a wrong fact has been relied upon so as to record a finding. Further, in case any fact which was not to the knowledge of a particular party, which fact is very material to change the decision, redressal in way of review can be preferred.

6. It is also a settled principle of law that the statutory right to seek review cannot be exercised so as to to re-argue the case so as to convince the review Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at in the order, review of which is being sought.

7. As per the settled principle of law, the findings cannot be challenged by way of review petition so as to treat the judgment as incorrect and the only remedy in the said aspect available to prefer an is appeal. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that even in case the ‘incorrect fact’ is being based upon lengthy argument to contend the said incorrect fact, review will not be permissible.

8. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1167- 1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:

“5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for corr