CM-14590-2023 in/and -1- RA-CW-297-2023 in CWP-10148-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108) CM-14590-CWP-2023 IN/AND RA-CW-297-2023 IN CWP-10148-2020 Date of Decision: 09.7.2026 The Fatehabad New Vikas CTS Ltd., ......Applicants-Petitioners Fatehabad and another Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicant-respondents No. 10 and 11. Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 08.04.2021, whereby this Court allowed CWP No. 10148 of 2020 and set aside the permits issued in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 18, including the present applicants (respondent Nos. 10 and 11). Along with the review application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay 838 days. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants had earlier challenged the judgment dated 08.04.2021 by filing LPA No.658 of 2021, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2023 with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy before the learned Single Judge. The present review application was thereafter instituted on 14.08.2023. On a pointed query qua the delay in filing the present application, learned counsel GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CM-14590-2023 in/and -2- RA-CW-297-2023 in CWP-10148-2020 submits that the applicants had been bona fide prosecuting the intra Court appeal and, therefore, the period spent therein deserves to be excluded by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Heard. 4. Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where a litigant has been prosecuting a proceeding with due diligence before a Court which, on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain the same. In the present case, the learned Division Bench was neither lacking in jurisdiction nor was the appeal returned or dismissed on account of any jurisdictional defect. Rather, the applicants consciously elected to pursue the appellate remedy and subsequently withdrew the appeal with liberty to avail such remedy as may be available in law. Such withdrawal does not, by itself, attract relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. As such, no sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made out. The application seeking condonation of delay, therefore, deserves dismissal. 5. Even on merits, no case for review is made out. The jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is a limited one. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time of hearing, or any other analogous sufficient reason. The applicants have not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 08.04.2021. Their entire endeavour is to rely upon documents and factual assertions regarding submission of the application form and demand draft through electronic mail, which GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CM-14590-2023 in/and -3- RA-CW-297-2023 in CWP-10148-2020 admittedly were never placed before this Court when the writ petition was heard. Significantly, these documents were always within the knowledge and possession of the applicants, and no explanation has been offered as to why the same could not be produced earlier despite exercise of due diligence. Equally untenable is the plea that the applicants remained unrepresented or failed to file a written statement. Such omission is entirely attributable to the applicants themselves and cannot enlarge the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The applicants, in substance, seek a rehearing of the matter on facts by inviting this Court to re-appreciate the material and revisit the conclusions already arrived at. Such an exercise is impermissible in review jurisdiction, which cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal. 6. Accordingly, finding no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and no ground whatsoever for exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the application for condonation of delay as well as the review application are dismissed. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 09th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh