IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 Arvind Kharita ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. D.V.Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Balpreet Kaur Sidhu, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Ms. Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. The present review application has been filed for recalling the order dated 21.04.2025 by which, the writ petition CWP-26543-2014 (Annexure RA-1) was dismissed.

2. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant/petitioner argues that certain facts which were brought to the notice of the Court has not been appreciated in a manner required keeping in view the fact that there were certain constructions on the acquired land which was earlier exempted but, while passing the impugned order dated 21.04.2025, the said fact has not been appreciated by the Co-ordinate Bench in a manner required, which will give right to the review applicant to seek the review of the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant/petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction in the review is very narrow and the same can only be exercised in case any wrong fact has been taken into account to arrive at a conclusion or when there is mistake/error apparent on record. In the present case, despite giving due opportunity to the Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant/ petitioner to point out any incorrect fact taken into consideration to arrive at conclusion, the Learned Senior Counsel has not been able to point out any such incorrect fact relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court while passing the judgment dated

21.04.2025.

5. The only argument raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant/petitioner is that the facts on record have not been appreciated in a manner required. In case, a view of the review applicant/ petitioner is that that the order dated 21.04.2025 is incorrect, then the same will only give rise to appeal and not to the review.

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 controvers