IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104) CM-4441-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-149-2026 in CWP-18786-2024 Date of Decision : March 27, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Ex. Sep Jarnail Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, for the applicant-petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-4441-CWP-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the review application.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 95 days in filing the review application is condoned.

RA-CW-149-2026

1. Present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 13.11.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that the conclusion arrived at by this Court is not correct keeping in view the fact that there were red entries against respondent No.1; however, the benefit of disability pension has still been granted. It is contended that such a conclusion is mala fide.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners and have gone through the record with her able assistance.

4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners is that the judgment passed by this Court, review of which is sought, is incorrect.

5. As per the settled principle of law, incorrect judgment cannot be challenged in review as the scope of review is very narrow so as to correct any order, which is based upon any incorrect fact, which was relevant could not be brought to the notice of this Court.

6. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicant-petitioners 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 apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way o