$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 54/2019 NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Pratap, Advocate versus NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING OCCUPANTS WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD) .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 17.04.2026 CM APPL. 24917/2026 (delay of 22 days in re-filing) 1. By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 22 days in re-filing the review petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 22 days is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of accordingly. CM APPL. 24918/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. REVIEW PET. 179/2026 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 20.01.2026, passed by this Court in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 13:00:11 FAO 54/2019, whereby finding no merit in the appeal, the same was dismissed. 2. Notably, vide the judgment under review, this Court had dismissed the challenge to the order dated 22.01.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application filed by the appellant/review petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be dismissed. In the said application, the appellant had prayed that the respondent/plaintiff’s society and its employees be restrained from stopping the licensees from making monthly maintenance/service charges to the appellant. Further, it was prayed that the plaintiff be restrained from illegally meddling into its affairs. As noted above, the Trial Court finding no merit in the application, dismissed the same. This Court noted that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case in its favour as the record reflected a persistent failure to discharge its maintenance obligations, especially regarding the lifts and common areas. Further the plaintiff’s society had to take steps to rectify the “shabby and unhygienic” conditions of the society by engaging contractors through its own funds to ensure the building’s habitability. The Court also noted that the appellant was not managing day-to-day affairs and the renovation work. 3. The present review petition is premised primarily on the ground that in a complaint filed under Section 156(3) and 200 CrPC, the Ld. CJM had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 200 CrPC regarding theft of important records, and issued summons to the accused i.e. office bearers of the respondent vide order dated 02.07.2025. The said cognizance was taken on 02.07.2025 which was very much in the knowledge of the appellant. Even otherwise, the same would not in any manner effect the decision of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 13:00:11 this Court. 4. The law on review is well-settled. A review is maintainable only on limited grounds, such as an error apparent on the face of the record and not for a re-hearing of the case on merits. The Supreme Court has authoritatively held the same in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati1 as under:- “20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 13:00:11 (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 5. Earlier, in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India2, the Supreme Court held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for correction of a patent error. It was observed that an error which is not self-evident and which has to be detected by a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify exercise of the power of review. 6. A gainful reference can also be made to the decision in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury3, wherein the Supreme Court held that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 7. In view of the above facts and the settled position of law, there is no error apparent on the face of record and the review petition being devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J APRIL 17, 2026 ga 2 (2000) 6 SCC 224 3 (1995) 1 SCC 170 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 13:00:11