RA-CW-421 of 2024 in -1- CWP-17179-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (206) RA-CW-421 of 2024 IN CWP-17179-2024 Date of Decision: 27.7.2026 Ajmer ......Applicant-Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate and Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 7. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 03.9.2024, whereby the main case i.e. CWP No. 17179 of 2024 has been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that on 03.9.2024, the counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, had stated before the Hon’ble Bench that some irrelevant and wrong information had been provided instead of the required information. However, in the order dated 03.9.2024, it was wrongly mentioned that “the learned counsel on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, acknowledges that the desired information has been received on 03.8.2024.” It is submitted that in view of the erroneous recording of the statement, the main petition GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.30 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RA-CW-421 of 2024 in -2- CWP-17179-2024 was disposed of vide impugned order dated 03.9.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the judgment dated 03.9.2024 be reviewed and recalled by allowing the present application. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 7 have opposed the present application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have thoughtfully considered the submissions advanced as well as the material available on record. 5. Upon a thoughtful consideration of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves dismissal. The present review application does not disclose any ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction by this Court. The contours of the review jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are too well settled to warrant any elaborate discussion. The power of review is an extremely limited one. It is intended to correct patent errors apparent on the face of the record and not to enable a dissatisfied litigant to secure a rehearing on merits. A review is, therefore, by no means an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction may be invoked only where there exists (i) an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced when the judgment was rendered; or (iii) any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 6. It is trite and well settled that a judgment is required to be tested on the basis of the material which existed and was available to the Court at the time of its rendition. Subsequent events, unless expressly recognised by GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.30 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RA-CW-421 of 2024 in -3- CWP-17179-2024 law, cannot be relied upon to reopen a concluded adjudication by invoking the limited review jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In the present case, except from the bald assertion that the statement of the learned counsel has been incorrectly recorded, the applicant has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned judgment suffers from any patent error or that any circumstance exists warranting recall of the order dated 03.09.2024. 8. In essence, the applicant seeks a rehearing of the matter on merits by inviting this Court to revisit the conclusions already recorded. Such an exercise falls squarely outside the limited ambit of review jurisdiction. Reappreciation of evidence, reconsideration of findings already recorded or substitution of one possible view by another is the province of an appellate forum and not of a Court exercising review jurisdiction. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground recognized under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been made out for exercise of the limited review jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the present review application is hereby dismissed. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 27th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.30 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh