107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-1928-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-69-2026 in CWP-19828-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 11-02-2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Petitioner(s)

VERSUS DHARAMPAL AND ANOTHER ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel for the applicant/petitioners-Union of India. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

CM-1929-2026 in RA-CW-69-2026 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 487 days in filing the review application.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 487 days in filing the review application is condoned.

CM-1927-CWP-2026 and CM-1928-CWP-2026 in RA-CW-69-2026 This is an application for placing on record relevant documents as Annexure A-1 along with an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the same.

Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the applications, the same is allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

RA-CW-69-2026 in CWP No.19828 of 2024

1. The present review application has been filed for recalling the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court by which, the writ petition CWP No.19828 of 2024, was dismissed.

2. In the present review petition, the grievance faced by review petitioners is that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the pleadings putforth, the relief which has been granted vide order dated 22.08.2024, is not correct hence, the judgment, which is incorrect, is liable to be reviewed.

3. Further, on the basis of the pleadings raised and circumstances stipulated in the review petition, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India attempts 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 learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant/petitioners-Union of India and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the jurisdiction of this Court in a review petition is very limited and the same can only be undertaken in case, any fact which has been relied upon so as to record a finding, is incorrect. Further, the same can be undertaken, in case any fact which was not in the knowledge of a particular party, which fact is very material to change the decision, redressal qua the same by 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 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 recorded in a judgement cannot be challenged by way of review petition so as to treat the judgment as incorrect and the only remedy, which can be availed in the said aspect is to prefer an appeal. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that even in case where lengthy argument is being putforth to contend that an incorrect fact has been noticed, redressal by way of review will still 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 o