IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 16.03.2026 GAJE SINGH . .Applicant Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present review application, the prayer of the review applicant is for reviewing the order dated 05.02.2026 in CWP-32850-2018 passed by this Court on the ground that, in the order dated 05.02.2026, inadvertently, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has already retired from service whereas, as per official record, the petitioner retired from service on 02.07.2016. The said fact could not brought to the knowledge of this Court and therefore, keeping in view the said fact the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2026 is liable to be reviewed.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the review applicant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

3. The argument being raised by the learned counsel for the review applicants is that the interpretation given by the Court in the order dated

05.02.2026 is incorrect.

4. As per the settled principle of law, the jurisdiction to review an order is very limited and same is only permissible, in case, any incorrect fact or facts have been recorded so as to arrive at a conclusion. Further, the review is only permissible, in case, any fact which was not in the knowledge of the review applicant despite due diligence, has come to the notice of such review applicant so as to press the same into review so as to recall the order. 5. In the present case, the review of the order dated 05.02.2026 is being sought on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case which were brought on record is not correct. The said ground is not permissible in the review application, as the ground that the order is incorrect can only be agitated in an appeal. Hence, no review can be filed under the guise of an appeal in order to re-argue the case so as to convince the Bench hearing the review application to arrive at a different conclusion.

6. 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 correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:“

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error appa