RA-RS-22- IN RSA-260 IN THE HIG 120 Jagdev Singh Munshi and CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. present revie S.151 CPC by this Cour 1993 whereb dated 13.05.2 2. against the j Additional D plaintiff/resp judgment an and suit for decreed. -2026 (O&M) 2602-1993 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA RA-R IN RS Date o Singh (deceased) through LRs and ot .…No Versus i and others ....Res M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Tanuj Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Varun Garg, Advocate for review-applicant/respondent I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The review-applicant/responden review application under Section 114 CPC seeking review of the judgment/ s Court in CM-14427-C-2025, CM-17 whereby the main appeal was dispose 13.05.2016 (Annexure C-1) arrived at Briefly stated, the appellant/def t the judgment of reversal dated 6.10 onal District Judge, Ropar, whereby ff/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, ent and decree dated 06.08.1988 pass uit for mandatory injunction filed D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RS-22-2026 (O&M) RSA-2602-1993 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 and others Non-applicant/Appellants Respondents NIDHI GUPTA te for ondent No. 3. pondent-plaintiff No. 3 has filed the 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w ment/order dated16.02.2026, passed 1775-C-2026 in/and RSA-2602- isposed of in terms of compromise ved at between the parties. ant/defendants are in second appeal d 6.10.1993 passed by the learned ereby the Civil appeal filed by the was allowed setting aside the 8 passed by the learned trial Court; filed by the plaintiffs was partly the ise peal rned the the ; artly RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-RS-22- IN RSA-260 3. order dated the LRs of making false present appl notice of the the main app issued to t respondents that the pres herein) are n main appeal by the appel review appl application m 4. 5. 6. been passed basis of com the parties. 7. (Annexure C Bahadur is a of the ver -2026 (O&M) 2602-1993 -2- Learned counsel for the revie dated 16.02.2026 deserves to be review Rs of appellant/defendants No. 1 to g false statement regarding compromi t applicant/respondent No. 3/plaintif of the application bearing No. CM ain appeal on the basis of compromise to the review-applicant. It is co dents No. 1, 4 and 5/plaintiffs No. 1, e present review applicant and plain are not interested in pursuing the pre appeal was disposed of on the basis o appellants and respondents No. 1, 2, applicant. It is accordingly pray ation may be allowed. No other argument is made on b I have heard ld. counsel and per Perusal of the order under revi assed by this Court in the presence f compromise dated 13.05.2016 (Ann rties. A further perusal of the C xure C-1) shows that the review app is a very much a party to the said e vernacular of the said compro review-applicant submits that the reviewed on account of the fact that 1 to 3 have misled the Court by promise as well as qua the death of laintiff No. 3. It is submitted that CM-14427-C-2025 for disposal of romise dated 13.05.2016 was never is contended that the LR’S of No. 1, 4 and 5 have wrongly stated plaintiff No. 6 (respondent No. 6 the present case. It is argued that the asis of aforesaid mis-representation . 1, 2, 4 and 5,in the absence of the prayed that the present review de on behalf of the review applicant. nd perused the case file in detail. er review reveals that the same has of both the parties, and on the (Annexure C-1) arrived at between the Compromise dated 13.5.2016 w applicant namely Khan @ Khan e said compromise. Further, perusal ompromise (at page 12 of the the t by h of that l of of ated o. 6 t the tion f the iew ant. has the een 016 han usal the RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-RS-22- IN RSA-260 CM-14427 review appl applicant tha effect has ev 8. applicant, or no ground to law that a re to re-argue t during the in passed in the by this Cour record mean judgment. Th pleadings th such, I find above, no co review of the 9. Supreme C SLP(C)No.1 review juris follows: -2026 (O&M) 2602-1993 -3- 4427- C-2025), shows that the same applicant as well. Moreover, it is ant that he is not a party to the said has even been stated in the present rev The arguments made by the lea ant, or even the grounds averred in the und to review the order dated 16.2.202 at a review application is not meant t rgue the entire case and raise the poin the initial hearing. The order under in the presence of learned counsel fo s Court can be reviewed if there is ma meaning thereby that there is a clea ent. The Review Application is not me ngs that were omitted during the hea I find no such error in the order dated no cogent ground is made out by th of the order dated 16.2.2026. Reliance is also placed on a rec me Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K )No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09 jurisdiction have been laid down “15. It is axiomatic that the assumed unless expressly con rules having the force of a sta cannot be assumed unless it e same bears the signature of the , it is not the case of the review e said compromise. Nothing to this ent review application. the learned counsel for their review in the review application constitute .2.2026. It is established position in eant to permit the review-applicant e points that could have been raised under review dated 16.02.2026 was nsel for the parties. An order passed is manifest error on the face of the a clear and obvious mistake in the t meant to re-agitate arguments or he hearing of the main matter. As dated 16.02.2026. Rather, as noted t by the review applicant to justify n a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Vs. K. Suguna and Another” 08.09.2025, wherein principles for down in Para 15, which reads as t the right of appeal cannot be conferred by the statute or the a statute. The review jurisdiction s it is conferred bylaw on the the iew this iew itute n in cant ised was ssed f the the ts or . As oted stify er” s for s as he on he RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-RS-22- IN RSA-260 10. ground is m Present Revi 11. 10.04.2026 rishu -2026 (O&M) 2602-1993 -4- authority or the Court. Section CPC deal with the power of re of review is different from app the following limitations to ma decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings a and have to be strictly confine Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be con which may enable an appellate errors committed by the subord 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdic CPC, it is not permissible for reheard and corrected. A r remembered, has a limited purp be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can b of a mistake, but not to substitu exercised within the limits spec the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does no order. A rehearing of the constitutes an exception to th judgment is signed or pronoun Hence, it is invoked only to pre or to correct grave and palpabl In view of the above noted fa d is made out to review the order t Review Application accordingly stan Pending application(s), if any al 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable tion 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of f review of the courts. The power appellate power and is subject to o maintain the finality of judicial gs are not by way of an appeal nfined to the scope and ambit of confused with appellate powers, llate court to correct all manner of bordinate court. isdiction under Order 47 Rule1 of for an erroneous decision to be A review petition, it must be purpose and cannot be allowed to an be exercised for the correction stitute a view. Such powers can be specified in the statute governing es not sit in appeal over its own the matter is impermissible. It to the general rule that once a nounced, it should not be altered. o prevent a miscarriage of justice pable errors.” oted factual and legal position, no order/judgment dated 16.02.2026. ly stands dismissed. any also stand(s), disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of er to ial al of rs, of of be be to on be ng wn It a d. ce . RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.