RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 IN THE H Mohinder Sing State of Punjab 1. The date w 2. The date w 3. The date w 4. Whether pronounce pronounce 5. The delay judgment, CORAM : HO HO Present : Mr Mr for Mr Ms LAPITA BANE Thi 02, 2025 passed have been urge reviewing of t reproduced alon review applican Court on each o 2. Mr for assistance of maintainable. 2025 in 2025 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH RA-CW CWP No r Singh ... Versus unjab and others ...R date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounce date when the judgment is uploaded ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full jud nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Addl. AG, Punj Ms. Mandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab. ANERJI, J. This is an application for review o passed by this Bench in CWP No.10 urged by the review applicant/writ of the order dated December 02 d along with the submissions made plicant on each ground. Thereafter, an each of the grounds is noted. Mr. Himanshu, Addl. AG, Punjab nce of the Court and submitted that t JAB AND HARYANA AT CW-605 of 2025 in P No.10001 of 2025 ...Applicant/Petitioner ...Respondents 14.01.2026 ounced 06.04.2026 aded 08.04.2026 judgment is ll judgment is Full ncement of full Not applicable DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI and , Punjab and unjab. view of an order dated December No.10001 of 2025. Eight grounds writ petitioner for modification/ er 02, 2025. The grounds are made by learned counsel for the ter, analysis and conclusion of this unjab appeared on advance notice that the review application is not SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 3. The the Court reco recalling/modifi and 2 in paragra “(I the des bei (II) 201 the 31. 4. Lea grounds, has pl ordinate Bench 2011 as ‘infruct hearing of the c report indicatin petitioner durin contempt Court that entire 16 m to learn in 2015 the government. 5. It is th petition being C that the structu petitioner was r dated Septembe marla (21 marla land being vacan 2025 in 2025 The review applicant, being dis- t recorded in the judgment unde modification of the same by various aragraph 5 of the review application “(I) The petitioner showed no in the 2013 report that was handed despite the fact that his valuable being determined pursuant to that r (II) No challenge was laid to t 2013. The petitioner cannot be al the said issue after 12 years of 31.08.2013.” Learned counsel for the review app pleaded and submitted that the r ench while disposing the writ petitio fructuous’ is dated August 31, 2013 f the case was held on Monday i.e S icating the quantum of released lan during hearing on September 2, 201 Court in the year 2024. The petitione 16 marlas of his land was released in 2015 that the entirety of disputed lan nment. It is the petitioner’s case that subsequ eing COCP No.1568 of 2022 the petiti structure/house situated on 09 marla was released. The action/inaction w tember 02, 2013 passed in CWP No. marlas) of land was released by the vacant. -satisfied with the findings of under review has sought for rious grounds. The grounds No.1 are reproduced hereunder: no interest to receive a copy of ded over to Court by GMADA able rights over his land were hat report. to the report dated August 31, e allowed to re-open/re-agitate of the impugned report dated ew applicant in respect of the said t the report relied upon by a Co- petition being CWP No. 21263 of 2013 which was Saturday and the i.e September 2, 2013. The said land, was not supplied to the 2, 2013 and was done before the titioner was under the impression sed in his favour and was shocked ted land was mutated in favour of bsequent to filing of the contempt e petitioner for the first time learnt marlas of land belonging to the was in violation of the order No.21263 of 2011 as 01 kanal 01 by the authorities despite the said SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 6. It w notified on Apr judgment, there favour of the p non-suited on t dismissal of the petition was file of delay in filin was beseeched t perused, from in black colour submissions hav grounds a, b, c, 7. Wh the submissions officers’ report After considerin event the petitio lead to was that 2013 report that that his valuable there was no ch petitioner was n submission of th 8. Mr the vacant land (21 marlas) belo 2025 in 2025 It was contended that since the lan n April 21, 2023 and not on Septe therefore, fresh cause of action ac the petitioner and the review applic d on the ground of delay of 12 ye of the contempt petition on February as filed in March, 2025 by the petitio in filing the present writ petition does ched that records of the contempt Cou rom which it would transpire that enti colour had been recommended to ns have been pleaded in paragraph 5 , b, c, d, e and f under ground No.2. While hearing the main writ petitio issions on behalf of the petitioner/revi eport being handed over to the petition sidering the said submissions it had petitioner’s argument was accepted th s that the petitioner had shown no inte rt that was handed over to the Court b aluable rights were being determined p no challenge to the officers’ report was not permitted to re-open/re-agitat of the said report. Mr. Kaushal has sought to agitate t land situated in Khasra No.99/1 adm belonging to Harjinder Singh and the land of the petitioner was de- eptember 02, 2013 the date of ion accrued in the year 2023 in applicant/petitioner could not be 12 years. Immediately, after the bruary 19, 2025, the present writ petitioner. Therefore, the question n does not and could not arise. It Court should be summoned and at entire 16 marlas of land marked d to be released. The aforesaid aph 5 of the review application in petition, this Court had considered er/review applicant with regard to petitioner in 2024 and not in 2013. it had been observed that in the pted the only conclusion it would no interest to receive a copy of the ourt by GMADA despite the fact ined pursuant to that report. Since eport dated August 31, 2013, the agitate the issues after 12 years of gitate that the authorities released /1 admeasuring 01 kanal 01 marla h and Swaran Singh sons of Ishar SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 Singh pursuant directions for re 9. Harjinder Singh petition and by no. 250 of the m was allegedly that has been contained in co counsel for the by referring to t permissible in 10. Assu the aforesaid pe petitioner that on negative disc wrongs cannot m with his family judgment and di petitioner and Bench earlier. 11. Inc paragraph 5 of that this Court supplied belated the paragraph 2025 in 2025 suant to the officers’ report dated Aug for release by the Co-ordinate Bench It is not lost upon the mind o Singh and Swaran Singh have not be nd by perusing column No.6 under the f the main paper book, it cannot be op edly released in their favour was vaca been recommended to be released in in column No.5 under the heading or the petitioner has factually sought ng to the annexures appended to the m le in a review petition. Assuming vacant land had been mist aid persons even then, it could not be that the same should be done in his fa ve discrimination. It is a well settled annot make a right. The fact that the amily members since long is no grou and directing de-notification of 07 ma the said argument had been con . Incorrect pleadings find place in 5 of the review application seeking to ourt had noticed that officers’ report belatedly to the petitioner, before the under reference, this Court had o d August 31, 2013 contrary to the ench. ind of this Court that the said not been made parties in the writ der the heading ‘Set Back’ on page opined whether such land that as vacant or not. The area of land in favour of the petitioner is eading ‘Covered Area’. Learned ought to re-argue the writ petition the main paper book, which is not mistakenly released in favour of t be contended on behalf of the his favour, claiming parity based ettled proposition of law that two at the petitioner had been residing o ground for reviewing impugned 07 marlas of land in favour of the en considered and rejected by the in placitum (b) of ground (ii) of king to create a misplaced opinion report dated August 31, 2013 was re the contempt Court in 2024. In had only noted the contentions of SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 Mr.Kaushal, lea his contentions, 12. At of the judgme “interestingly th CWP No.21263 petition, being difficult to acce unaware of the favour, he show handed over to determined by proposed to be plan indicates released and no quantum of the now sought to r hearing of main that was availab writ petition can 13. The observations by “xx (III adv util (IV rele con 31. 2025 in 2025 al, learned counsel appearing for the tions, the same were rejected. At this juncture, it would be appos udgment under review wherein ly the learned counsel who repres 263 of 2011 also represented the p ing CWP No.10001 of 2025”. The o accept the contention of the petition f the area of the land sought to be rele showed no interest to receive a co ver to the Court by GMADA, despit by the report. The report contai to be released. Therefore, the marked cates the location of land that was nd not the entirety of the land occupi of the same is contained in the report ht to rely on a site plan which was no f main writ petition. This court is als vailable to the petitioner and not plac on cannot be produced for the first tim The next two grounds for seekin ns by this Court: “xxx (III) The petitioner cannot to advantage of his ignorance espec utilized. (IV) The petitioner wants his released, the onus is on him to s construction on the said land 31.08.2013, it is not for the authori for the petitioner and after noting apposite to refer to paragraph 13 it has been recorded that presented the writ petitioner in he petitioner in the present writ Therefore, the Court found it etitioner that even though he was be released from acquisition in his e a copy of 2013 report that was despite his valuable rights being contained the quantum of land arked portion in black in the site t was covered and sought to be upied by the petitioner and the report of 2013. The petitioner has as not placed before it during the t is also of the view that material ot placed during the hearing of the rst time in review. seeking review are the following t today be allowed to take specially when the land stands his 07 marlas of land to be to show that there was pucca nd prior to the report dated thorities to go and assess the age SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 of alle xxx 14. Lea that as the dispu authorities since be released. Ref as well as parag 15. Att July 12, 1982 revenue record P-1 and P-2 sho plan of Novemb for the review a been contended not controverted on record any co 16. Ref petition is sough 04, 2008-09 and Bench while pas after applying it for release of on acquisition. The hearing of the m 17. Thi the petitioner du 2025 in 2025 of the said temporary construct alleged to have been constructed in xx” Learned counsel for the review app disputed land admeasuring 07 marlas since pucca structures are standing Reference has been made to Annex paragraph 23 at page 18, of the paper Attention of this Court was drawn 1982 (Annexure P-3) at page 35 of ecord/jamabandis for the year 2003-04 2 showing the land to be ‘gair mu ovember 05, 2011 has also been referr view applicant/petitioner. Based on the ended that the construction was an ol verted by the State in their reply. Th any corroborative evidence to show th Reference to the documents in t sought to be re-argued, were docum 09 and 2011 all of which were avail ile passing the order September 02, 20 ying its mind to the facts and evidence e of only the constructed portion of the n. The said documents were also plac f the main writ petition filed in the yea This Court after considering all th ner during hearing of the main writ p truction/cattle shed which are ed in the year 1975-76. ew applicant again sought to argue marlas has not been utilised by the nding thereupon, the same should nnexure P-16 of the writ petition paper book. drawn to the electricity bill dated 35 of the writ petition and the 04 and 2008-09 at Annexures mumkin makan’. The old site referred to by the learned counsel he aforesaid documents, it has s an old one and such factum was ly. Thus, the State failed to bring how that the land stood utilised. s in the garb of which the writ ocuments relating to 1982, 2003- available before the Co-ordinate 02, 2013. The Co-ordinate Bench idence on record passed the order of the land of the petitioners from o placed before this Court during he year 2025. all the aforesaid submissions of writ petition had passed the order SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 dated Decembe original record petitioner’s land Weaker Section was produced present in Cour the purpose of c City, the said fin The learned cou writ petition by available to him 18. The “xx (V) vis pur qua (VI sho dism ma agi xxx It has been reit Harjinder Singh No.4664 of 201 writ petition wa 2013. The land and being situ 2025 in 2025 cember 02, 2025 which is under rev records pertaining to inclusion of t ’s land in development of residential c ection (EWS) in IT City, Sector 101- uced by the Chief Administrator, Court. After satisfying itself that the se of constructing residential colony said findings of facts were recorded in ed counsel for the petitioner is now se ion by filing a review application wh to him in law. The grounds No.5 and 6 for review “xxx (V) The petitioner has vaguely vis-à-vis another land owner w purportedly released without prov qua such discrimination. (VI) The petitioner has accepted showing release of 9 marla of lan dismissed vide order dated 19.0 marlas of land and the petitioner agitate the same issue again and ag xx” en reiterated that 21 marlas land has Singh and Swaran Singh who we of 2012 ‘Harjinder Singh v. State of P was also decided vide common land of the said persons was duly re situated away from the Phirni o review. It had called for the of the disputed 07 marlas of ntial colony for the Economically -Alpha Block-D and the same ator, GMADA being personally at the said land stood utilised for olony for members of EWS in IT in the judgment under review. now seeking to re-argue the entire ion which course of action is not review are set out hereinafter: uely pleaded the discrimination r whose 01 marla land was providing any necessary detail ted the report dated 31.08. 2013 f land and contempt petition is 19.02.2025 qua remaining 07 ioner cannot be allowed to re- d again. d has been released in favour of were the petitioners in CWP of Punjab and others’. The said mon order dated September 02, uly released despite being vacant irni of the village whereas the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 petitioner’s land arbitrarily not 19. It i main writ peti remained uncon contradict the petition could no fresh petition u aforesaid submi 20. As said Harjinder proceedings. A marla land had and the factum even then such r the main writ p granting relief judgment in “Ba reported in (20 relevant extract “xx 8. Con by pro pos hav mis oth an whi enf 2025 in 2025 land which touched the Phirni, thou not released. It is contended that the pleadings a t petition on the area of land rele uncontroverted as no reply was fi the same and the disposal/closure/ ould not curtail the remedy available to ition under Article 226 of the Con submissions have also been pleaded in As discussed hereinabove, the peti jinder Singh and Swaran Singh a gs. Assuming that 21 marlas of vaca d had been released by the authoritie ctum of such release land had not bee such release would not or could not writ petition as negative discriminat relief to the petitioner. Reliance can “Basawaraj and another v. Specia (2013) 14 SCC 81 for such a view xtract thereof is reproduced hereinafte “xxx 8. It is a settled legal propos Constitution is not meant to perpet by extending the wrong decisions m provision does not envisage negat positive aspect. Thus, if some othe have been granted some relief/b mistake, such an order does not others to get the same relief as wel an earlier case, it cannot be perp which cannot be claimed in illegal enforced by a citizen or Court i , though eligible for release, was ings at page Nos.16 and 17 of the d released to aforesaid persons was filed by the respondents to losure/dismissal of the contempt lable to the petitioner of filing of a e Constitution of India. All the ded in the review application. he petitioners did not implead the ingh as parties to the present f vacant land out of 07 kanals 01 horities in favour of said persons, ot been controverted by the State, d not have affected the outcome of imination cannot be the basis for can be placed on Apex Court ecial Land Acquisition Officer” a view taken by this Court. The inafter: oposition that Article 14 of the rpetuate illegality or fraud, even ns made in other cases. The said egative equality but has only a other similarly situated persons lief/benefit inadvertently or by not confer any legal right on well. If a wrong is committed in perpetuated. Equality is a trite, egality and therefore, cannot be urt in negative manner. If any SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 ille ind pas juri mu sim par ben Art ma xxx Therefore, any 21. B Court in “Jyos in 2025 SCC O hereinafter: “xx 31. com Ma cla pet disc on per cla to Rul env ma Cha par 2025 in 2025 illegality and irregularity has been individual or a group of individual passed by a judicial forum, o jurisdiction of the higher or supe multiplying the same irregularity o similarly wrong order. A wrong ord particular party does not entitle benefits on the basis of the wrong Article 14 cannot be stretched too make functioning of administration xxx” e, any wrong committed by the author Basawaraj (supra) has been rece Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of O CC OnLine SC 117. The relevant e “xxx 31. Another argument was rai communications dated 28.06.1999 Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rat claiming to be from the post of Peo petitioner is claiming violation discrimination. Suffice to add, this on the illegalities committed perpetuating the same. A litigant claim negative discrimination seek to the department to act in violat Rules. It is a settled proposition of envisage negative equality. Refere made to a judgment of this Cou Chairman and Managing Direct para thereof is extracted below: “28. A principle, axio constitutional lore is th equality. In other words, if advantage conferred on on legal basis or justificat multiply, or be relied upon equality. xxx” been committed in favour of an duals or a wrong order has been m, others cannot invoke the superior court for repeating or ity or illegality or for passing a g order/decision in favour of any title any other party to claim rong decision. Even otherwise, too far for otherwise it would tion impossible. [Emphasis Supplied] authorities cannot be perpetuated. n recently followed by Supreme of Odisha and others” reported vant extract thereof is reproduced raised while referring to two 999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani Rath as Tracer on promotion, f Peon, on the basis of which the ion of Article 14, namely the , this Court cannot put a stamp ed by the department while ant coming to the Court cannot seeking direction from the Court iolation of the law or statutory n of law that Article 14 does not ference for the purpose can be Court in R. Muthukumar v. The irector TANGEDCO. Relevant axiomatic in this country's that there is no negative s, if there has been a benefit or n one or a set of people, without fication, that benefit cannot upon as a principle of parity or [Emphasis Supplied] SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 22. The as follow: (VI jud onl rec (VI who own exe 23. It h petition filed in 2013 writ petitio having been re August 31, 201 impossible to ch effected on Apr February, 2025, officers’ report Therefore, it w reiterated that th in contiguous e As the released the review petit was factually dated August Furthermore, re the re-location servant, cattle equipments like 2025 in 2025 The next two grounds for ascertain (VII) The present petition is not o judicata but also on merit as by t only the constructed portion recommended to be released and no (VIII) The re-location policy is o whose constructed houses were owners like the petitioners whos exempted from the acquisition. It has been reiterated on behalf of iled in 2025 was not hit by the princ petition was disposed of vide order da n rendered infructuous’ based on 1, 2013 that was not handed over t e to challenge the same in 2013. Only n April 21, 2023 and the contempt 2025, the writ petitioner became aw report and challenged the same by was not hit by the principles of that the disputed land is in continuity ous extension of village Abadis and ased portion marked in black colour petition, included the petitioner’s l ally in accordance with the recomm gust 31, 2013 and the same sh , release of such land can also be ation policy which included bound cattle sheds and place earmarked ike tractors etc. were included in certaining the impugned order are not only hit by principle of res- by the report dated 31.08.2013 on of 09 marla land was nd not entirely of 16 marla. is only to aid the land owners ere acquired not for the land hose constructed houses were alf of petitioner that the main writ principles of res judicata as the rder dated September 02, 2013 ‘as ed on the officers’ report dated over to him in Court making it . Only after the de-notification was tempt petition was disposed of in me aware of the contents of the e by filing 2025 writ petition. les of res judicata. It was further inuity with the structures that were and should have been released. olour on the site plan appended to er’s land, the claim of petitioner commendations made vide report should have been released. o be considered, keeping in mind boundary walls, rooms kept for rked for storing of agriculture ded in the concept of structures. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 Therefore, the c the true letter an 24. It i arguments were 2025. This Cou has arisen on th based on the of clearly indicate recommended 25. The concerns only residence and houses were bei Court has been petitioner has review applicati 26. At thi also merits a di Court was prim disobedience on order of the Co arguments for 16 marlas had portion existed GMADA was d the Court. On alleged contemn 2025 in 2025 , the cattle shed of the petitioner is elig tter and spirit of the relocation policy. It is not lost upon the mind of this s were considered and rejected vide is Court cannot accept the submission on the date of notification dated Apri officers’ report dated August 31 dicate that the covered area is 09 k to be released. The re-location policy referred only the people who were being o and the same is not applicable for th ere being released from acquisition. T s been clearly stated in paragraph has sought to re-agitate the same plication which is impermissible. t this juncture the sequence of event ts a discussion. Vide order dated Aug prima facie of the opinion that th nce on the part of the respondents by he Co-ordinate Bench dated Septemb s for learned counsel for the petitione s had been released by the responden xisted over 14 marlas. Consequently was directed to remain present in Cou On August 23, 2024, learned coun ontemnor informed the Court that a is eligible for release considering olicy. his Court that all the aforesaid vide order dated December 02, ission that a new cause of action d April 21, 2023 when the same is ust 31, 2013, annexures to which 09 kanals and only that area is erred to by the writ petitioner eing ousted from their place of for the people whose constructed tion. The afore noted view of this graph 16 of the judgment. The same issue by filing the present f events before the contempt Court August 13, 2024, the contempt hat there was an apparent wilful nts by failing to comply with the ptember 02, 2013 after noting the titioner that only 09 marlas out of pondents whereas the constructed uently, the Chief Administrator, in Court on the adjourned date by counsel appearing on behalf of that a Committee headed by the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 Land Acquisiti GMADA and the process of c authorities in im said suggestion 2024 by the com 27. V noted that the p that would prov existed prior to into all the mate relevant lay ou expressing its op report. Thereaft to appear befo documents in su 28. A his claim and su the petitioner s Court for it to d said line of argu that the order d complied with. A been rendered i writ petitioner s by filing the ma 2025 in 2025 quisition Collector, SAS Nagar, D and the concerned Divisional Engine ss of conducting an enquiry regarding s in implementation of the order date estion was accepted and the enquiry e committee was placed before the Co Vide order dated September 17, t the petitioner should have been calle prove that the structures in quest rior to 2013 officers’ report. The com e material/documents furnished by the lay out plan of the sector depictin g its opinion which was to be conveye ereafter, the Committee afforded an o r before it on September 19, 202 s in support of his contentions. After hearing the petitioner the Co and submitted a supplementary report oner sought to re-argue the case on to decide the area of open space situ f argument was not entertained by the rder dated September 02, 2013 pass with. Accordingly, the contempt petiti ered infructuous and the Rules stood ioner sought to re-argue the issues set he main writ petition being CWP No.1 ar, District Town Planner/STP, ngineer, GMADA would conclude rding the delay of 09 years by the ted September 02, 2013. The quiry report dated September 04, the Contempt Court. er 17, 2024 the contempt Court called upon to adduce evidence question over the disputed land e committee was directed to look by the petitioner and consider the epicting petitioner’s land before nveyed by filing a supplementary ed an opportunity to the petitioner , 2024 along with all relevant the Committee found no merits in report to that effect. At that stage, se on merits before the contempt situated outside his house. The by the contempt Court and it held 3 passed by the writ Court stood t petition was dismissed as having stood discharged. Thereafter, the ues settled by the contempt Court P No.10001 of 2025. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 29. After h by the Chief A this Bench had the Court it was his contempt pe application has b 30. To misconceived a error apparent o new or importa Court has time a on merits is not of review are d dated January 1 Singh and othe under: “xx juri Sup 201 the Ha out var 2025 in 2025 After hearing the parties and perusing hief Administrator, GMADA, being p h had dismissed the writ petition with it was a frivolous attempt to agitate mpt petition. After the same stood di n has been filed to re-agitate the same To the mind of this Court, the revie ived and an abuse of process of law rent on the face of the record nor has mportant fact after passing of the or time and again reiterated that on a rev is not permissible. The principles with are discussed by a Co-ordinate Ben uary 17, 2025 in RA-LP-61-2024 in others v. State of Punjab and other xxx The principles as regards th jurisdiction of the court, have been Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verm 2013 (8) SCC 320 and were reitera the case of Columbia Holdings Pvt Haryana and others RA-CW-357 out as regards scope and exten various judicial precedents may be A. Exercise of review jurisdi cases where one of the follo (i) When there is discov matter or evidence, subje following conditions: a) New matter/evidence disc which could change the jud rusing the original record provided eing personally present in Court, n with costs, since to the mind of gitate the issues after dismissal of ood dismissed the present review same issues. e review application is completely f law where neither there is any or has there been discovery of any order. The Hon’ble Supreme a review application re-argument es with regard to scope and extent e Bench of this Court vide order in LPA-670-2024 “Dhirender others” which are reproduced as s the scope and extent of review been summarized by the Hon’ble erma v. Mayawati and others iterated by this Court as well, in s Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of 357 of 2015. The principles set xtent of review jurisdiction in y be summarized as follows: risdiction is called for only in following ground exists: iscovery of new and important ubject to the fulfillment of the discovered is of such nature e judgment. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 2025 in 2025 b) Such new matter/eviden knowledge of the party seek c) Same could not be produ due diligence (ii) When mistake or error record. (iii) When there exists “an which is interpreted as ana grounds. B. The review jurisdiction following grounds: (i) Only a “patent error decision” can be said to face of record. (ii) Review is not mainta error, manifest on the face soundness or results in mis (iii) The error apparent should not be an error whi searched. (iv) If a matter is required corrected, it would be an review. (v) A repetition of old and enough to reopen conclude (vi) The power of revie "correction of mistake" a view". Substitution of view appellate court. (vii) Merely because a do part of the record was no deciding the case cannot b or error apparent on the fa (viii) A review is by no m whereby an erroneous corrected but lies only for p (ix) The mere possibility cannot be a ground for rev vidence was not within the seeking review oduced before court even after error apparent on the face of the “any other sufficient reasons”, s analogous to the aforesaid two ction is not exercisable on error” and not a “mere wrong d to be an error apparent on the intainable unless the material face of the order, undermines its miscarriage of justice. ent on the face of the record which has to be fished out and ired to be first reheard and then e an appeal under the guise of and overruled argument is not luded adjudications. eview is to be exercised for e" and not for "substitution of view would be the province of an a document which was forming s not considered at the time of not be categorized as a mistake he face of record. o means an appeal in disguise us decision is re-heard and for patent error. lity of two views on the subject r review. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 Jus Lt. the rep rep Ape pow of inh spe app in l not exc and dec 2025 in 2025 (x) The appreciation of within the domain of the ap permitted to be advanced in th (xi) Review is not mainta sought at the time of arguing negative. (xii) Failure to argue a po the matter by the court, is als review as it would be a case was overlooked by counsel a misfortune or mistake. Justice Krishna Iyer, in Northern I Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 (2) S the limited scope of review of judgm "A plea for review, un manifestly distorted, is In “Shri Ram Sahu representatives and others v. Vinod reported in (2021) 13 Supreme C Apex Court considered the scope power to review under Section 114 of the CPC and held that the po inherent power of the Court. It mus specifically or by necessary implica appeal in disguise. A re-hearing of in law. It is beyond doubt or disput not sit in appeal over its own or exception to the general Rule that and pronounced it should not be alt Under Order 47 Rule 1 CP decision on the following grounds: “1. Application for review o 1. Any person considering a) By a decree or order allowed, but from wh preferred, b) By a decree or order allowed, or of evidence on record is fully e appellate court, it cannot be in the review petition. intainable when the same relief uing the main matter had been a point at the time of hearing of is also not a ground for seeking ase where the existing material el and not a case of excusable ern India caterers (India) Ltd. v. (2) SCC 167, while highlighting udgment observed as under: , unless the first judicial view is d, is like asking for the moon". ahu (dead) through legal inod Kumar Rawat and others” e Court Cases 1, the Hon’ble cope and ambit of the Court’s 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 e power to review was not an must be conferred by law either plication. A review cannot be an g of the matter is impermissible ispute that the review Court does n order. It only constitutes an that once a judgment is signed e altered. CPC, the Court can review its nds: iew of judgment:- ering himself aggrieved rder from which an appeal is which no appeal has been rder from which no appeal is SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 The inte dec pow xxx 31. No counsel appearin the order under was to re-argue Court and also t 32. In field, the review Rs.20,000/- to Chandigarh, for settled issues ag 2025 in 2025 c) By a decision on refer causes, and who from important matter or exercise of due dilig knowledge or could not time when the decree w on account of some m the face of the record, reason, desires to obta passed or order made a review of judgment to decree or made the orde 2. A party who is not order may apply fo notwithstanding the pen other party except wher is common to the appl when being responden appellate court the case review.” The expression “any other suff interpreted in the light of other spe decision/ order cannot be correcte power of review. xx” No satisfactory explanation could ppearing for the review applicant for n under review as the only purpose for f argue the issues settled by the Co also this Court. In the light of aforesaid discussion review application is dismissed in li to be paid to the Poor Patient for wasting precious judicial tim ues again and again showing scant reg reference from a Court of small rom the discovery of new and or evidence which, after the diligence was not within his not be produced by him at the ee was passed or order made, or e mistake or error apparent on ord, or for any other sufficient obtain a review of the decree de against him, may apply for a t to the Court which passed the order. not appealing from a decree or for a review of judgment pendency of an appeal by some where the ground of such appeal applicant and the appellant, or ndent he can present to the case on which he applies for the sufficient reason” has to be r specific grounds. An erroneous ected in the guise of exercise of (emphasis supplied) could be provided by the learned t for not preferring an appeal from se for filing the review application Co-ordinate Bench, Contempt ussion and the law governing the in limine with costs assessed at atient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, ial time and by re-agitating the nt regard for authority of law. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-605-20 CWP-10001-20 33. Con accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB JUDGE APRIL 06, 202 Shalini Whether speakin Whether reporta 2025 in 2025 Connected application(s), if any, s SIBAL) (LA DGE , 2026 speaking/reasoned: Ye reportable: Ye any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.08 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document