RA-RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117. Dara Singh and others Darbara Singh and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate for *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.11314- Application is allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. RA-RS No.55 of 2025 1. The present review application under Sections 114 and 151 CPC review of the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court in appeal, which stood dismissed 2. The primary ground 1st Appellate Court, the 41 Rule 27 CPC CD containing video regarding existing position of Khasra No.139 and passage situated in the East of Khasra No.139 by examining It is alleged that the said application remained undecided and was not adverted to while dismissing the appeal RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) in RSA-2734 Date of Decision: and others Versus and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) -C of 2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. RS No.55 of 2025 The present review application under 114 and 151 CPC has been filed by the applicants review of the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court in stood dismissed. The primary ground on which the review is sought Appellate Court, the applicants-appellants had filed an application under 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence viz; proving memory card, pen drive, CD containing video regarding existing position of Khasra No.139 and passage situated in the East of Khasra No.139 by examining It is alleged that the said application remained undecided and was not adverted to while dismissing the appeal by the learned 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) in 2734-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.09.2025 ... Applicants-Appellants ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , Advocate AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Application is allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The present review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with has been filed by the applicants-appellants seeking review of the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court in regular second on which the review is sought is that before the appellants had filed an application under Order viz; proving memory card, pen drive, CD containing video regarding existing position of Khasra No.139 and passage situated in the East of Khasra No.139 by examining the proprietor of Ravi Studio. It is alleged that the said application remained undecided and was not adverted to by the learned 1st Appellate Court. It is further IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Order XLVII Rule 1 read with seeking regular second is that before the Order viz; proving memory card, pen drive, CD containing video regarding existing position of Khasra No.139 and passage the proprietor of Ravi Studio. It is alleged that the said application remained undecided and was not adverted to It is further PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) submitted that alleged encroachment on the part of the applicant claimed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 and on the basis of report of the local commissioner vide which the applicants declared in illegal possession of six marlas and thus, a fresh demarcation ought to have been conducted. second appeal are reiterated. 3. Heard. 4. The a matter of right but only on satisfaction of the conditions under CPC, namely: (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced at the time of trial; o evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. not disputed that t disposed of at the time of hearing of the appeal, by a along with the final judgment. 5. However, t appellants with respect to non additional evidence by the learned 1 of grounds of regular second ground was not taken in the appeal itself and thus, by raising such argument in the review petition would tantamount to re review under Order XLVII Rule 1 RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) -2- submitted that alleged encroachment on the part of the applicant claimed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 and on the basis of report of the local commissioner vide which the applicants declared in illegal possession of six marlas and thus, a fresh demarcation ought to have been conducted. Further, in the present application, grounds as raised in the second appeal are reiterated. Heard. The additional evidence at the appellate stage is not to be admitted as a matter of right but only on satisfaction of the conditions under (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced at the time of trial; or (c) the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. that the law requires that such an application must ordinarily be disposed of at the time of hearing of the appeal, by a along with the final judgment. However, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants with respect to non-consideration of application for producing additional evidence by the learned 1st Appellate Court, regular second appeal before this Court ground was not taken in the appeal itself and thus, by raising such argument in the review petition would tantamount to re-argue the appeal, whi Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. submitted that alleged encroachment on the part of the applicants-appellants was claimed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 and on the basis of report of the local commissioner vide which the applicants-appellants were declared in illegal possession of six marlas and thus, a fresh demarcation ought to n the present application, grounds as raised in the additional evidence at the appellate stage is not to be admitted as a matter of right but only on satisfaction of the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused h ought to have been admitted; (b) the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due (c) the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is also he law requires that such an application must ordinarily be disposed of at the time of hearing of the appeal, by a reasoned order, before or he argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants consideration of application for producing Appellate Court, has no merit, as a perusal before this Court clearly reveals that the said ground was not taken in the appeal itself and thus, by raising such argument in the argue the appeal, which is not the scope of appellants was claimed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 and on the basis of appellants were declared in illegal possession of six marlas and thus, a fresh demarcation ought to n the present application, grounds as raised in the additional evidence at the appellate stage is not to be admitted as Order 41 Rule 27 (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused (b) the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due (c) the appellate court requires such also he law requires that such an application must ordinarily be reasoned order, before or he argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants- consideration of application for producing has no merit, as a perusal clearly reveals that the said ground was not taken in the appeal itself and thus, by raising such argument in the ch is not the scope of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) 6. It is trite that invoked to re-argue or re different view. An “error apparent on the face self-evident and not one requiring elaborate arguments. cannot be allowed to reopen the appeal under the guise of review. Supreme Court SCC 337 has laid down certain principles w maintainable:- “(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) (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 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 p (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 7. There is no explanation as to why aforesaid ground could not be taken by the applicants RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) -3- It is trite that review jurisdiction is extremely limited argue or re-appreciate evidence, nor to substitute a possible different view. An “error apparent on the face evident and not one requiring elaborate arguments. cannot be allowed to reopen the appeal under the guise of review. Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. has laid down certain principles w (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. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." There is no explanation as to why aforesaid ground could not be taken by the applicants-appellants in the regular second appea review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It cannot be appreciate evidence, nor to substitute a possible different view. An “error apparent on the face of the record” must be manifest, evident and not one requiring elaborate arguments. The applicants-appellants cannot be allowed to reopen the appeal under the guise of review. The Hon’ble Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 has laid down certain principles when the review will not be (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a 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 (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." There is no explanation as to why aforesaid ground could not be appellants in the regular second appeal itself; whereas . It cannot be appreciate evidence, nor to substitute a possible of the record” must be manifest, appellants The Hon’ble (2013) 8 hen the review will not be (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a error apparent on the face of the record should not be an (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the There is no explanation as to why aforesaid ground could not be ; whereas PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) other grounds as taken in the regular second appeal by this Court in the judgment dated 8. No ground jurisdiction by this Court. Consequently, September 12, 2025 Pankaj* RS No.55 of 2025 (O&M) -4- as taken in the regular second appeal by this Court in the judgment dated 12.08.2025, which is sought to be reviewed. No ground is made out to exercise the by this Court. Consequently, the review application (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) , 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Reportable as taken in the regular second appeal have already been dealt with 12.08.2025, which is sought to be reviewed. to exercise the limited scope of review he review application is dismissed. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No have already been dealt with 12.08.2025, which is sought to be reviewed. limited scope of review PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh