A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is not an appeal in disguise; it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence, and cannot be used to re-argue merits or substitute a view.

Review I.A.No.1 of 2025

in

W.P.No.15778 of 2024

Heard Sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners on record and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Lakshmikant Reddy Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on record.

The present review has been filed seeking review of the order of this Court dated 22.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.15778 of 2024.

C.C.2160 OF 2024

in

W.P.No.15778 of 2024

Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Lakshmikant Reddy Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and Sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/contemnors on record.

The contempt case is filed to punish the Respondents/Contemnors for willful disobedience of the Orders of this Court dated 22.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.15778 of 2024.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :

2. The learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners and the contemnors in the contempt case mainly puts-forth the following submissions :

i) The orders of this Court, dated 22.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.15778 of 2024 needs to be reviewed since this Court did not consider the State Vigilance Report, dated 18.03.2023 while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

ii) The Writ Petition No.15778 of 2024 was disposed of at the admission stage without giving an opportunity of filing counter to the respondents.

iii) Para No.5 of the State Vigilance Report, dated 18.03.2023 had not been considered since the same had not been brought to the notice of this Court on one hand, the Court observed that this Court was not going into the merits of the rival contentions of both the learned counsel on record. On the other hand, this Court directed the respondents to prepare the final bill considering the value of the saved quantity of diesel in terms of the Diesel bonus Statement dt.15/19.03.2024 and supply a copy of the same to the petitioner before seeking their signature on the same.

Based on the aforesaid submissions and placing reliance on the aforesaid Judgments of the Apex Court the learned Senior Designate Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners contends that the Review Petition needs to be allowed as prayed for and the contempt needs to be closed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners in the review petition and the contemnors in the contempt case placed reliance on the following judgments:

(A) The Judgment in “ Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra ” reported in (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 753, in particular, the relevant portion of Para No.15.1 is extracted hereunder:

“(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.”

(B) In the case of “Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and Building Department and another v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others” reported in (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 315, in particular, at para Nos. 42 to 46, it is observed as under :

“42. Order 47 does not end with the circumstances as Section 114 CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:

(i) discovery of new and impo