IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-167-2026 (O&M) in CWP-30261-2024 (O&M)

Decided on : 17.04.2026 Union of India and others . .Applicant Versus Daljit Singh and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR PRESENT: None.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-5017-CWP-2026 The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the present review application ( RA-CW-167-2026 ).

Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 53 days in filing the present review application ( RA-CW-167-

2026 ) is condoned.

RA-CW-167-2026

1. In the present review application, the prayer of the review applicant is for reviewing the order dated 01.12.2025 in CWP-30261-2024 passed by this Court.

2. The assertion which is being made in the present review application is that the interpretation given by the Court is incorrect.

3. As per the settled principle of law, the jurisdiction to review an order is very limited and same is only permissible, in case, any incorrect fact or discrepancies in facts have been recorded to arrive at a conclusion. Further, the remedy to file review is permissible, in case, any fact which was not in the knowledge of the review applicant despite due diligence, has come to the notice of such review applicant so as to press the same into review so as to recall the order.

4. In the present case, the review of the order dated 01.12.2025 is being sought on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case which were brought on record, is not correct. The said ground is not permissible while adjudicating upon a review application, as the contention that an order passed by Court is incorrect can only be agitated in an appeal. Hence, no review can be filed under the guise of an appeal in order to re-argue the case so as to convince the Bench hearing the review application to arrive at a different conclusion.

5. 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 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 longdraw