IN T 101+206+3 Sardool Sin Dr. Shailen CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU CM-INCO applicant- Registry on Haryana H objections h counsel pa However, t objections. CM-INCOMP-523-2025 & RA-CR-45-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR +305 CM-INCOMP-52 DIARY No.10380 Review Applicati COCP-3119-2019 Date of decision : ool Singh Ghumman …..App Versus hailendra Jain and another AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Applicant-Petitioner Sardool Si (through VC). Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate wi Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocate fo applicants/respondents. I GUPTA J. (Oral) INCOMP-523-2025 The aforesaid application was -petitioner. However, certain obje stry on 14.1.2025. As per Rule 9, Chapter I, Part ana High Court Rules and Orders, tions have been raised by the Registry sel party, who filed it, to re-file wit ever, the same was not taken back fo tions. On failure, the case is to be l 023 in COCP-3119-2019 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 523-2025 .10380140 in/and plication-CR-45-2023 in 2019 ision :-29.10.2025 Applicant-Petitioner …..Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ool Singh Ghumman in person ate with cate for the non- n was filed on 13.1.2025 by the n objections were raised by the I, Part-A, Volume V, Punjab and rders, the petition, on which gistry is to be taken back by the ile within a period of 40 days. ack for refiling after removal of o be listed before the Court for VIJAY ASIJA 2025.10.31 14.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document orders. Foll causelist an applicant- rectification matter has b further orde the same is CM-10022 application RA-CR-45 order dated ground take documents, the Contem CM-INCOMP-523-2025 & RA-CR-45-2023 -2- s. Following note was displayed/publish list and website of this Hon'ble Court o "All the Advocates/Parti the cases as mentioned which are lying pending of DRR Branch and n within one month of the notice, failing which a Caveat Applications) wi Court on judicial side fo Even after the publication of -petitioner/Advocate to collect his/ ication of objections, the needful was n r has been listed before this Court in ur Keeping in view the aforesai er order is required to be passed in the same is disposed of. 10022-CII-2025 The applicant-petitioner sub cation may be disposed of having been r Ordered accordingly. 45-2023 Prayer in the present applicatio dated 24.2.2023 passed in the main con d taken by the applicant-petitioner is ments, though available on the case f ontempt Court while passing the order d 023 in COCP-3119-2019 /published by the Registry in the ourt on 13.05.2025:- Parties are requested to collect ned in the list attached below ding in the Objection Counter nd not taken back till today, f the date of publication of this ch all the cases (except the s) will be listed before Hon'ble e for appropriate orders." ion of the note requesting the ct his/her case for re-filing after was not done. Consequently, the t in urgent list today. foresaid facts of the matter, no in the present application, hence, r submits that the present been rendered infructuous. lication is for reviewing the final ain contempt petition. The only ner is that some of the material ase file, were not considered by order dated 24.02.2023. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.10.31 14.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for the resp 24.2.2023. entertained record or w after exerci applicant or subsequentl merely to r the original documents, record. Th admittedly pressed by apparent on to interfere the contem accordingly October 2 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep CM-INCOMP-523-2025 & RA-CR-45-2023 -3- I have heard the applicant-peti e respondents and gone through the ca 2023. The scope of review is extreme tained only when there is an error ap d or where some new and important exercise of due diligence was not wi cant or could not be produced at the tim quently discovered. The review jurisd ly to reargue the matter or to fill up o riginal proceedings. In the present case, the applican ments, now sought to be relied upon, w d. The non-consideration of such ttedly available at the relevant time ssed by the applicant-petitioner, canno rent on the face of the record”. In view of the above facts, no terfere with or review the final order d ontempt petition. The application, b dingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, sh 29, 2025 Asija er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No 023 in COCP-3119-2019 petitioner and learned counsel the case file and the order dated tremely limited. A review can be rror apparent on the face of the ortant matter or evidence, which not within the knowledge of the he time of passing of the order, is jurisdiction cannot be invoked l up omissions or lacunae left in pplicant-petitioner admits that the pon, were already part of the case such documents, which were time but were not specifically cannot be treated as an “error ts, no ground has been made out rder dated 24.02.2023 passed in tion, being devoid of merit, is any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.10.31 14.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document