A review petition is not an appeal in disguise; it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or discovering new evidence, and cannot be used to re-argue merits or substitute a judicial view.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-3075-CWP-2026

1. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 423 days in filing the present review petition.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 423 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

RA-CW-107-2026

3. Present review petition has been filed for the review of order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

4. The scope of review is very narrow and can only be entertained in case any wrong fact has been made the basis for the conclusion arrived at.

5. On being asked to point out any wrong fact, learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any such incorrect fact relied upon by the Coordinate Bench while passing the order under review dated 29.11.2024.

6. The only endeavour of the learned counsel for the applicant is to re-argue the case under the garb of review so as to convince this Bench to arrive at a different conclusion than the one already arrived at.

7. As per settled principle of law, the incorrect order can only be challenged in appeal and not in review petition. 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 of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.”

8. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma , (1979) 4 SCC 389 has been held that it is only on discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise