Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40594-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 93 of 2024 Applicant :- Dy. Commisioner Of Income Tax , Dcit (Bpu) , Lko. And Another Opposite Party :- Smt. Meera Pandey Counsel for Applicant :- Neerav Chitravanshi,Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J. 1. Heard. 2. This application seeks review of judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 11 of 2023 : Smt. Meera Pandey Vs. Union of India and others, whereby petitioner's writ petition has been allowed. 3. We have gone through grounds taken in review application, which virtually constituting an attempt to re-argue the matter which cannot be done in the garb of review. 4. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455 while quoting with approval the above passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn : 1979 (4) SCC 389, the Apex Court has held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 5. In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others : 1997 (8) SCC 715, it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. 6. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai : AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and has held as under :- "The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgement/order cannot be disturbed." 7. Thus, review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India : AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Apex Court has held that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665. 8. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others : 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Apex Court has held as under :- "19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 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" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526, 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 vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337. 22.2. 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. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." (emphasis supplied) 9. Having regard to the aforesaid proposition of law and gone through the record available before this Court, we are of the view that there is no apparent error on the face of record, hence no ground for review of the order is made out. 10. The present review application is, accordingly, rejected. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Ajit Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench