Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used for rehearing the case, introducing new facts, or allowing parties to resile from binding admissions made in original proceedings, as this would contravene the doctrine of judicial finality.

1. Present review petition has been preferred by State of Rajasthan (“review petitioner”) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, seeking review / recall of order dated 04.01.2013 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11943/2010, whereby, on the basis of specific averments and admission made in reply filed by respondent No. 4 – Municipal Board, Barmer, writ petition was disposed of while directing said respondent to pay compensation to writ petitioner at the rate of reserved price of Rs.400/- per sq. feet along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for review petitioner stated that challenging said judgment dated 04.01.2013, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 369/2014 was filed, primarily on the ground that said judgment was passed on the basis of concession made by counsel for appellant, though he did not had instructions to that effect. However, Hon’ble Division Bench observed that it would be expedient for appellant – review petitioner to file an application for review against said judgment dated 04.01.2013. Thus, while closing said appeal, liberty was granted for filing of review petition.

Hence, present review petition has been filed before this Court, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 439 days.

3. Before proceeding with merits of review petition, heard learned counsel for the parties upon application seeking condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for review petitioner stated that after passing of judgment dated 01.04.2013, relevant file was obtained from Municipal Board in May 2013, legal opinion was taken in the month of October 2013, and final decision of filing special appeal was taken in the month of December 2013 and special appeal was filed on 04.02.2014. It was stated that after order dated 28.02.2014 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench, present review petition was filed.

4.1 Learned counsel for review petitioner submitted that delay caused in filing instant review petition is bonafide and that review petition has been filed promptly, pursuant to liberty granted by Hon’ble Division Bench, and thus, requested for condonation of delay.

4.2 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that special appeal was filed after a lapse of more than 1 year, i.e. on 04.02.2014 and no sufficient reason for said delay has been explained by review petitioner. It is contended that day-to-day delay was required to be explained and such casual explanations of procedural and administrative nature are wholly inadequate to justify inordinate delay of 439 days.

4.3 This Court duly considered submissions made at Bar. Though it is found that impugned order dated 04.01.2013 was challenged before Hon’ble Division Bench after a lapse of more than 1 year, however, the same only amounts to delayed filing of Special Appeal (Writ). However, once said special appeal was entertained by Hon’ble Division Bench and liberty was granted to file present review petition, this Court finds it justified to condone delay of 439 days and to adjudicate present review petition on its merits.

4.4 In view of aforesaid reasons, delay caused in filing