A review application is not an appeal in disguise; it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence that was not previously available despite due diligence, and cannot be used to re-argue merits or seek negative equality under Article 14.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

1. This is an application for review of an order dated December 02, 2025 passed by this Bench in CWP No.10001 of 2025. Eight grounds have been urged by the review applicant/writ petitioner for modification/reviewing of the order dated December 02, 2025. The grounds are reproduced along with the submissions made by learned counsel for the review applicant on each ground. Thereafter, analysis and conclusion of this Court on each of the grounds is noted.

2. Mr. Himanshu, Addl. AG, Punjab appeared on advance notice for assistance of the Court and submitted that the review application is not maintainable.

3. The review applicant, being dis-satisfied with the findings of the Court recorded in the judgment under review has sought for recalling/modification of the same by various grounds. The grounds No.1 and 2 in paragraph 5 of the review application are reproduced hereunder:

“(I) The petitioner showed no interest to receive a copy of the 2013 report that was handed over to Court by GMADA despite the fact that his valuable rights over his land were being determined pursuant to that report.

(II) No challenge was laid to the report dated August 31, 2013. The petitioner cannot be allowed to re-open/re-agitate the said issue after 12 years of the impugned report dated 31.08.2013.”

4. Learned counsel for the review applicant in respect of the said grounds, has pleaded and submitted that the report relied upon by a Co-ordinate Bench while disposing the writ petition being CWP No. 21263 of 2011 as ‘infructuous’ is dated August 31, 2013 which was Saturday and the hearing of the case was held on Monday i.e September 2, 2013. The said report indicating the quantum of released land, was not supplied to the petitioner during hearing on September 2, 2013 and was done before the contempt Court in the year 2024. The petitioner was under the impression that entire 16 marlas of his land was released in his favour and was shocked to learn in 2015 that the entirety of disputed land was mutated in favour of the government.

5. It is the petitioner’s case that subsequent to filing of the contempt petition being COCP No.1568 of 2022 the petitioner for the first time learnt that the structure/house situated on 09 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner was released. The action/inaction was in violation of the order dated September 02, 2013 passed in CWP No.21263 of 2011 as 01 kanal 01 marla (21 marlas) of land was released by the authorities despite the said land being vacant.

6. It was contended that since the land of the petitioner was de-notified on April 21, 2023 and not on September 02, 2013 the date of judgment, therefore, fresh cause of action accrued in the year 2023 in favour of the petitioner and the review applicant/petitioner could not be non-suited on the ground of delay of 12 years. Immediately, after the dismissal of the contempt petition on February 19, 2025, the present writ petition was filed in March, 2025 by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of delay in