[2025:RJ-JP:28902-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1086/2023 In S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.12854/2017 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Financial Adviser, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Jaipur Depot Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, District Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Dhanna Lal Jat S/o Shri Hari Narayan, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Post Chosla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 30/07/2025 1. This D.B Special Appeal challenging the order passed in Review Petition (Writ) No.89/2022, we noticed that the main order passed by the learned Single Judge is not under challenge before us in appeal. The order has been placed on record by the appellant in terms or directions of this Court. From the perusal thereto, we find that original order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.12.2021, whereby, writ petition was allowed, [2025:RJ-JP:28902-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1086/2023] but the same has not been challenged in appeal before us, only the order passed in review petition is under challenge. 2. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge in review petition and find that the learned Single Judge has noticed the limitations relating to filing of review as held in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 651, and subsequently in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 337 as well as Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat 2020 SCC Online SC 896 to reach to the conclusion that there was no occasion for the Court to review its earlier order as there were no factual error in the judgment and as per submission of the appellant, review petitioner having deposited the amount of Rs. 8,31,722/- in the bank as CPF amount would make no difference to the findings passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petitioner would be agreed to refund the amount with interest. 3. In view of above, no interference is warranted and the D.B Special Appeal challenging the impugned order passed in review petition, would not lie without challenging the original judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/DIKSHA/62