[2025:RJ-JP:29392-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 271/2018 In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.651/2018 Sunil Kumar Vangani Son of Shri Thanwar Das, Resident of Flat 1-F-34, Housing Board Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan Housing Board, through Commissioner, Opposite Vidhan Sabha, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 3. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, through Chief Executive Officer, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 4. Arun Mathur Son of Shri Jugal Kishore Mathur, Resident of 1-F-36, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 5. Kamla Jakhar Wife of Shri Anand Singh, Resident of 1-F- 38-39, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 6. Anand Singh Son of Not Known, Resident of 1-F-38-39, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi for Rajasthan Housing Board HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 29/07/2025 This Court noticed that in review petition filed, the petitioner had pointed out the facts which were taken up in the writ petition and the contention raised in the appeal. The relevant extract from [2025:RJ-JP:29392-DB] (2 of 3) [WRW-271/2018] the judgement dated 27.04.2023 of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder: “(10)After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 337, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties arenot entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: “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 Chajju Ram v. Neki AIR 1922 PC 112, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 1955 SCR 520 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337. 20.2. 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 re- [2025:RJ-JP:29392-DB] (3 of 3) [WRW-271/2018] heard 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.” Thus, in view of the same, if we examine the contentions raised in the appeal by the appellant, we observed that the same have not been noticed with respect to the order passed by the Division Bench. We also noticed that the Court while deciding the writ petition have not taken into consideration the contentions raised in the appeal along with the factual & legal aspects which deserve to be examined and, therefore, an error apparent on the face of record has occurred. In view of above, this Court is satisfied that the order passed by this Court dated 03.08.2018 deserves to be recalled. Hence, the review petition is allowed. The special appeal is restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits again. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/GARIMA /91