NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The review-applicant/respondent-plaintiff No. 3 has filed the present review application under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w S.151 CPC seeking review of the judgment/order dated16.02.2026, passed by this Court in CM-14427-C-2025, CM-1775-C-2026 in/and RSA-2602- 1993 whereby the main appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure C-1) arrived at between the parties.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant/defendants are in second appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 6.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, whereby the Civil appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.08.1988 passed by the learned trial Court; and suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that the order dated 16.02.2026 deserves to be reviewed on account of the fact that the LRs of appellant/defendants No. 1 to 3 have misled the Court by making false statement regarding compromise as well as qua the death of present applicant/respondent No. 3/plaintiff No. 3. It is submitted that notice of the application bearing No. CM-14427-C-2025 for disposal of the main appeal on the basis of compromise dated 13.05.2016 was never issued to the review-applicant. It is contended that the LR’S of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5/plaintiffs No. 1, 4 and 5 have wrongly stated that the present review applicant and plaintiff No. 6 (respondent No. 6 herein) are not interested in pursuing the present case. It is argued that the main appeal was disposed of on the basis of aforesaid mis-representation by the appellants and respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5,in the absence of the review applicant. It is accordingly prayed that the present review application may be allowed.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the review applicant.

5. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

6. Perusal of the order under review reveals that the same has been passed by this Court in the presence of both the parties, and on the basis of compromise dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure C-1) arrived at between the parties.

7. A further perusal of the Compromise dated 13.5.2016 (Annexure C-1) shows that the review applicant namely Khan @ Khan Bahadur is a very much a party to the said compromise. Further, perusal of the vernacular of the said compromise (at page 12 of the CM-14427- C-2025), shows that the same bears the signature of the review applicant as well. Moreover, it is not the case of the review applicant that he is not a party to the said compromise. Nothing to this effect has even been stated in the present review application.

8. The arguments made by the learned counsel for their review applicant, or even the grounds averred in the review application constitute no ground to review the order dated 16.2.2026. It is established position in law that a review application is not meant to permit the review-applicant to re-argue the entire case and raise the points that could have been raised during the initial hearing. The order under review dated 16.02.2026 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the parties. An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. The Review Application is not meant to re-agitate arguments or pleadings that were omitted during the hearing of the main matter. As such, I find no such error in the order dated 16.02.2026. Rather, as noted above, no cogent ground is made out by the review applicant to justify review of the order dated 16.2.2026.

9. Reliance is also placed on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review jurisdiction have been laid do