IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 Thakur Dass ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Small Industries and Expert Corporation Limited ....Respondent

117 RA-CW-256-2025 in CWP-13573-2019 Sukhjit Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate for the review-applicant (in RA-CW-281-2025 in CWP-22270-2019).

Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the review applicants (in RA-CW-256-2025 in CWP-13573-2019).

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and Ms. Salina Chalana, Advocate for respondent – PSIEC.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. Present set of review petitions have been filed for the review of the judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

2. In the present set of review petitions, the argument being raised is that the findings which have been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court after considering the arguments are inconsistent and therefore, the review is permissible and the judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench may kindly be recalled so as to rehear the entire controversy again.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners further submits that though, against the said judgment, various SLPs which were filed have already been dismissed but the said fact will not precluded the review applicants to convince this Court that the order passed by the Division Bench, review of which is being sought, is based upon contradicting findings.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the review applicants and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the review applicants have argued that the findings which have been given by the Division Bench are inconsistent as, once the Court has already recorded a finding that in the absence of any objection taken by the applicants with regard to the enhancement of amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per square feet same will be amount to accepting the said offer but still it has been held that no right exists with the petitioners to claim the allotment as a matter of right, is incorrect.

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

7. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicants 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 rel