112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-138-2026 in CWP-9380-2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 15.05.2026 J.D SANDHU ........Review Applicant VERSUS THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS ........Non-applicant/Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. J.D Sandhu, Review Applicant in person.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

CM-4101-CWP-2026 in RA-CW-138-2026 This is an application for condonation of delay of 160 days in filing the review application.

2. For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of

160 days in filing the review application, is condoned.

RA-CW-138-2026

1. The present review application has been filed by the petitioner in person.

2. On being asked to point out any factual aspect which has been incorrectly recorded and has been relied upon to reach the conclusion so as to justify the review, the review applicant/petitioner in person has not been able to point out any such perversity. Rather, the effort is to re-argue the case in order to persuade the Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one already reached, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction hence, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the present review application.

3. Further, as per settled principle of law, an incorrect order can only be challenged in an 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.”

4. 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 of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made, the remedy of review may be