RA-CR-69 CM-10389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Parveen Neha Bhutani CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, the review applicant beseeches this Court to review passed by this Court, 2022 (her review-applicant against order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Court’), stood dismissed for non this Court in the 2. lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: (i) review-applicant 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA CM-10389 Date of decision: V/s Neha Bhutani CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Parveen-applicant-petitioner in person (through Video Conferencing). ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. By way of the application in hand of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, the review applicant beseeches this Court to review passed by this Court, whereby the revision petition bearing No. CR 2022 (hereinafter referred to as main revision petition’), applicant against order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the , stood dismissed for non-complianc this Court in the main revision petition. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the in hand is adumbrated, thus: Vide order dated 02.03.2022, the applicant to pay to the respondent 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CR-69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 Date of decision: 29.07.2025 ....Review/Applicant ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL petitioner in person (through Video Conferencing). ***** application in hand, preferred under Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, the review applicant beseeches this Court to review the order dated 12.12.2024, earlier whereby the revision petition bearing No. CR-1143 revision petition’), preferred by the applicant against order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family compliance of the orders earlier passed by essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the .03.2022, the Family Court had directed the to pay to the respondent-wife Rs.30,000/- per month as , preferred under Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, the review- earlier 1143- preferred by the applicant against order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned ‘Family e of the orders earlier passed by essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the had directed the per month as AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 & Rs.21,000/ expenses. (ii) Family Court, revision petition Court. This Court, while considering the Executing Court to defer the hearing of the exe review-applicant making respondent review-applicant to clear 50% of the arrears on or before the next date of hearing fixed therein. However, the comply with the same c (iii) were referred to the Mediation but to no avail. Thereafter, costs came to be imposed upon the petitioner (review by this Court for m having afforded multiple opportunities the main revision petition (iv) up for adjudication before this Court. Submissions 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 & Rs.21,000/ expenses. Aggrieved against the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Family Court, the review-applicant approached this Court vide the revision petition impugning the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the This Court, while considering the Executing Court to defer the hearing of the exe applicant making part payment respondent-wife. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023, this Court had directed the applicant to clear 50% of the arrears on or before the next date of hearing fixed therein. However, the failure on part of the comply with the same continued. Vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court, the parties were referred to the Mediation but to no avail. Thereafter, costs came to be imposed upon the petitioner (review-applicant herein) but the orders passed by this Court for making good the arrears were not com having afforded multiple opportunities & thus, vide order dated 12.12.2024, revision petition came to be dismissed. It is in this factual backdrop or adjudication before this Court. Submissions 2 maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 & Rs.21,000/- as litigation Aggrieved against the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the applicant approached this Court vide the main impugning the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Family This Court, while considering the main revision petition, directed the Executing Court to defer the hearing of the execution petition subject to the payment of maintenance arrears to the wife. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023, this Court had directed the applicant to clear 50% of the arrears on or before the next date of failure on part of the review-applicant Vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court, the parties were referred to the Mediation but to no avail. Thereafter, costs came to be applicant herein) but the orders passed aking good the arrears were not complied with, despite & thus, vide order dated 12.12.2024, came to be dismissed. It is in this factual backdrop, the application in hand has come as litigation Aggrieved against the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the main Family , directed the cution petition subject to the to the wife. Thereafter, on 23.08.2023, this Court had directed the applicant to clear 50% of the arrears on or before the next date of applicant to Vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court, the parties were referred to the Mediation but to no avail. Thereafter, costs came to be applicant herein) but the orders passed plied with, despite & thus, vide order dated 12.12.2024, has come AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 3. case despite having been afforded an opportunity to avail the services of a lawyer of his choice or a legal aid counsel. by the Family Court material basis. The respondent have led to passing of order dated petitioner has further submitted that he is under severe financial burden and was even compelled to take loan(s) to make the payment of maintenance amount but could not do so. The review of application 4. have perused the record. Prime Issue 5. scope, nature and extent of review jurisdiction as enshrined in Procedure C hand, seeking review allowed in the factual matrix of the present case. Relevant Statutory provisions 6. as ‘the C.P.C.) 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 The petitioner, appearing in person, chooses to present his own case despite having been afforded an opportunity to avail the services of a lawyer of his choice or a legal aid counsel. The review-applicant has submitted that the assessment made Family Court regarding the quantum of maintenance is bereft of any material basis. The respondent-wife has made misleading statements which led to passing of order dated 02.03.2022 by the petitioner has further submitted that he is under severe financial burden and was even compelled to take loan(s) to make the payment of maintenance amount but could not do so. The review-applicant has, thus, sought for grant application in hand. I have heard the review-applicant, who appears in person, and have perused the record. Prime Issue The seminal legal issue that arises for consideration is the scope, nature and extent of review jurisdiction as enshrined in Procedure Code, 1908. The analogus issue that arises is as to whether the seeking review of earlier order(s) passed by this Court in the factual matrix of the present case. Relevant Statutory provisions The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as ‘the C.P.C.) 3 The petitioner, appearing in person, chooses to present his own case despite having been afforded an opportunity to avail the services of a lawyer of his choice or a legal aid counsel. has submitted that the assessment made regarding the quantum of maintenance is bereft of any wife has made misleading statements which 02.03.2022 by the Family Court. The petitioner has further submitted that he is under severe financial burden and was even compelled to take loan(s) to make the payment of maintenance applicant has, thus, sought for grant applicant, who appears in person, and The seminal legal issue that arises for consideration is the scope, nature and extent of review jurisdiction as enshrined in the Civil The analogus issue that arises is as to whether the application in of earlier order(s) passed by this Court, ought to be in the factual matrix of the present case. Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred The petitioner, appearing in person, chooses to present his own case despite having been afforded an opportunity to avail the services of a has submitted that the assessment made regarding the quantum of maintenance is bereft of any wife has made misleading statements which The petitioner has further submitted that he is under severe financial burden and was even compelled to take loan(s) to make the payment of maintenance applicant has, thus, sought for grant applicant, who appears in person, and The seminal legal issue that arises for consideration is the Civil application in , ought to be (hereinafter to be referred AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 Section 114 of C.P.C, 1908 read “Review. –– Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved –– (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which pass or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC reads as under: “1. Application for review of judgment himself aggrieved, — (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important ma evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or fo other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order m apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the 4 reads as under:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC reads as under: Application for review of judgment — (1) Any person considering from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. A party who is not appealing from a decree or order m apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case n which he applies for the review. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this ed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it (1) Any person considering from which an appeal is allowed, but from tter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some r any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 Case-Law 7. (i) Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980(2) SCC 167 Hon’ble Sup 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Law The precedent(s) germane to the matter in issue are, thus: In a judgment titled as Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980(2) SCC 167 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Raja at p. 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta p.760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mohindroo v. Distt Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII Rule 1 in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a rev cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility’. 5 subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a d for the review of such judgment.” The precedent(s) germane to the matter in issue are, thus: Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980(2) SCC 167, a Three Judge Bench of the has held as under:- “It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933 For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective Distt. Judge Delhi (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p.27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the made by Parliament or the rules made under Art In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on ule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be recognized except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. a Three Judge Bench of the “It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it , (1965) 1 SCR 933 For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will , (1971) 3 SCR 748 at The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective at p.27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the Article In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on , and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever iew proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 (ii) 1993(4) SCT 264 held as under: (iii) as S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors, Nos.1167 jurisdiction has summed up thus: 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 In a judgment titled as S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka, 1993(4) SCT 264, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “19. Review literally and even judicially means re consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.” More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors, Nos.1167-1170 of 2023, after considering a catena of decisions jurisdiction has summed up thus: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the point where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misc even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 6 S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re hilosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors, in Civil Appeal after considering a catena of decisions of review (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record drawn process of reasoning on the point where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examination or re- hilosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled Civil Appeal of review (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record drawn process of reasoning on the points (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which onception of fact or law by a court or (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 8. jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, are incontrovertibly established and have been the subject of extensive judicial pronouncements. It is a fundamental tenet of o latitude of review is exceedingly circumscribed, strictly confining itself to the specific predicates meticulously enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. This limitation underscores the extraordinary nature of the pow which is not intended to be a routine avenue for matters as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Caterers prerogative of review, therefore circumspection, ever mindful that it appeal masquerading in different garb. This judicial vigilance is crucial to uphold the finality of judgments and prevent an endless cycle of litigation. As the adage goes, public interest that there be an end to litigation. The Court is imperatively obligated to remain cognizant that the invocation of this power must eschew any re-examination of an issu such a course would be to offend the settled judicial maxim, “Res judicata pro thereby undermining the foundational principle that once a matter has been 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 The canonical principles delineating the purview of review jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, are incontrovertibly established and have been the subject of extensive judicial pronouncements. It is a fundamental tenet of o latitude of review is exceedingly circumscribed, strictly confining itself to the specific predicates meticulously enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. This limitation underscores the extraordinary nature of the pow which is not intended to be a routine avenue for matters as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Caterers (supra), S. Nagaraj (supra), S. Murali Sundaram prerogative of review, therefore, must circumspection, ever mindful that its exercise does not transmute into an appeal masquerading in different garb. This judicial vigilance is crucial to uphold the finality of judgments and prevent an endless cycle of litigation. he adage goes, “Interest reipublicae public interest that there be an end to litigation. The Court is imperatively obligated to remain cognizant that the invocation of this power must eschew examination of an issue on its substantive merits. To embark upon such a course would be to offend the settled judicial maxim, es judicata pro veritate accipitur”—a de thereby undermining the foundational principle that once a matter has been 7 The canonical principles delineating the purview of review jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, are incontrovertibly established and have been the subject of extensive judicial pronouncements. It is a fundamental tenet of our legal jurisprudence that the latitude of review is exceedingly circumscribed, strictly confining itself to the specific predicates meticulously enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. This limitation underscores the extraordinary nature of the pow which is not intended to be a routine avenue for re-examining concluded matters as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Northern India S. Murali Sundaram (supra). The must be wielded with utmost exercise does not transmute into an appeal masquerading in different garb. This judicial vigilance is crucial to uphold the finality of judgments and prevent an endless cycle of litigation. reipublicae ut sit finis litium” – it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation. The Court is imperatively obligated to remain cognizant that the invocation of this power must eschew e on its substantive merits. To embark upon such a course would be to offend the settled judicial maxim, a decided matter is taken for truth thereby undermining the foundational principle that once a matter has been The canonical principles delineating the purview of review jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, are incontrovertibly established and have been the subject of extensive judicial ur legal jurisprudence that the latitude of review is exceedingly circumscribed, strictly confining itself to the specific predicates meticulously enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. This limitation underscores the extraordinary nature of the power, examining concluded Northern India The be wielded with utmost exercise does not transmute into an appeal masquerading in different garb. This judicial vigilance is crucial to uphold the finality of judgments and prevent an endless cycle of litigation. it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation. The Court is imperatively obligated to remain cognizant that the invocation of this power must eschew e on its substantive merits. To embark upon such a course would be to offend the settled judicial maxim, cided matter is taken for truth, thereby undermining the foundational principle that once a matter has been AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 adjudicated upon its merits and attained finality, it ought not to be reopened to vex the tranquility of judgment. 8.1. to re-litigate a cause that has been thoroughly argued and decided. Instead, its primary purpose is to correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, such as a clear mistake or error committed by the court, d new and important matter or analogous to the preceding grounds. It is a remedial power, designed to ensure that justice is not thwarted by inadvertence, oversight, or patent error, rather than to pro have already been considered and decided by the Analysis (re facts of the present case) 9. thereupon. application conclusively reveals that, under the thin veil of seeking a review, the applicant has beseeched this Court to re substantive merits. Such a course of action is pate falls squarely outside the strictly delineated ambit of review jurisdiction. The review-applicant apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason within the impugned order that would afford a legitimate occasion for this Court to exercise its extraordinary power of review and revisit its earlier 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 djudicated upon its merits and attained finality, it ought not to be reopened to vex the tranquility of judgment. Ergo, it is indubitable that the power of review is not intended litigate a cause that has been thoroughly argued and decided. Instead, its primary purpose is to correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, such as a clear mistake or error committed by the court, d new and important matter or new evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the preceding grounds. It is a remedial power, designed to ensure that justice is not thwarted by inadvertence, oversight, or patent error, rather than to provide a second opportunity for a party to re have already been considered and decided by the Analysis (re facts of the present case) Now this Court reverts to the facts of the present case to delve thereupon. A meticulous perusal of the grounds articulated in the instant application conclusively reveals that, under the thin veil of seeking a review, the applicant has beseeched this Court to re substantive merits. Such a course of action is pate falls squarely outside the strictly delineated ambit of review jurisdiction. The applicant has utterly failed to pinpoint any palpable defect, error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason within the impugned order that would afford a legitimate occasion for this Court to exercise its extraordinary power of review and revisit its earlier 8 djudicated upon its merits and attained finality, it ought not to be reopened he power of review is not intended litigate a cause that has been thoroughly argued and decided. Instead, its primary purpose is to correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, such as a clear mistake or error committed by the court, discovery of evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the preceding grounds. It is a remedial power, designed to ensure that justice is not thwarted by inadvertence, oversight, or patent error, vide a second opportunity for a party to re-argue points that have already been considered and decided by the Court. Now this Court reverts to the facts of the present case to delve erusal of the grounds articulated in the instant application conclusively reveals that, under the thin veil of seeking a review, the applicant has beseeched this Court to re-adjudicate the very lis on its substantive merits. Such a course of action is patently impermissible and falls squarely outside the strictly delineated ambit of review jurisdiction. The has utterly failed to pinpoint any palpable defect, error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason within the impugned order that would afford a legitimate occasion for this Court to exercise its extraordinary power of review and revisit its earlier djudicated upon its merits and attained finality, it ought not to be reopened he power of review is not intended litigate a cause that has been thoroughly argued and decided. Instead, its primary purpose is to correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the iscovery of evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the preceding grounds. It is a remedial power, designed to ensure that justice is not thwarted by inadvertence, oversight, or patent error, argue points that Now this Court reverts to the facts of the present case to delve erusal of the grounds articulated in the instant application conclusively reveals that, under the thin veil of seeking a review, adjudicate the very lis on its ntly impermissible and falls squarely outside the strictly delineated ambit of review jurisdiction. The has utterly failed to pinpoint any palpable defect, error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason within the impugned order that would afford a legitimate occasion for this Court to exercise its extraordinary power of review and revisit its earlier AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 pronouncement. In essence, the application seeks a rehearing of already considered and decided, a judicial pronouncements. attention of this Court. The Court vide order dated 12.12.2024. The of the said order has, however, been instituted only on 13.05.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained applicant has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this protracted delay. Such unexplained lapse, in the considered opinion of this Court, evinces a deliberate attempt on the part of the review protract the proceedings & thereby postpone the discharge of his statutory obligation to maintenance. The con lack of bona fides and appears designed to obviate and defeat the vested rights of respondent therefore construed to observe that the credible justification for the delay, is a manifest exercise in dilatory tactics & does not merit indulgence. Though, the said order is not under challenge, yet this Court has considere the merits of the Repeated opportunities were provided to the review payment of the arrears due to the respondent 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 pronouncement. In essence, the application seeks a rehearing of already considered and decided, a plea that is judicial pronouncements. There is one more aspect of the case in hand, attention of this Court. The main revision petition Court vide order dated 12.12.2024. The applicatio of the said order has, however, been instituted only on 13.05.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained hiatus of approximately six months. The review applicant has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this racted delay. Such unexplained lapse, in the considered opinion of this evinces a deliberate attempt on the part of the review protract the proceedings & thereby postpone the discharge of his statutory obligation to maintenance. The conduct exhibited unmistakably betrays a lack of bona fides and appears designed to obviate and defeat the vested rights of respondent-wife flowing from the earlier order(s). This Court is therefore construed to observe that the application in hand, credible justification for the delay, is a manifest exercise in dilatory tactics & does not merit indulgence. This Court dismissed the main Though, the said order is not under challenge, yet this Court has considere the merits of the application in hand as regards reviewing the same as well. epeated opportunities were provided to the review payment of the arrears due to the respondent 9 pronouncement. In essence, the application seeks a rehearing of issues hat is antithetical to the finality of There is one more aspect of the case in hand, that warrants the revision petition stood dismissed by this application in hand seeking review of the said order has, however, been instituted only on 13.05.2025, after an of approximately six months. The review applicant has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this racted delay. Such unexplained lapse, in the considered opinion of this evinces a deliberate attempt on the part of the review-applicant to protract the proceedings & thereby postpone the discharge of his statutory duct exhibited unmistakably betrays a lack of bona fides and appears designed to obviate and defeat the vested wife flowing from the earlier order(s). This Court is application in hand, bereft of any credible justification for the delay, is a manifest exercise in dilatory tactics & main revision petition on 12.12.2024. Though, the said order is not under challenge, yet this Court has considere as regards reviewing the same as well. epeated opportunities were provided to the review-applicant to make part payment of the arrears due to the respondent-wife. The matter was even issues antithetical to the finality of that warrants the stood dismissed by this seeking review of the said order has, however, been instituted only on 13.05.2025, after an of approximately six months. The review- applicant has not furnished any cogent or satisfactory explanation for this racted delay. Such unexplained lapse, in the considered opinion of this applicant to protract the proceedings & thereby postpone the discharge of his statutory duct exhibited unmistakably betrays a lack of bona fides and appears designed to obviate and defeat the vested wife flowing from the earlier order(s). This Court is any credible justification for the delay, is a manifest exercise in dilatory tactics & on 12.12.2024. Though, the said order is not under challenge, yet this Court has considered as regards reviewing the same as well. applicant to make part - wife. The matter was even AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-69 CM-10389 referred to the Mediation but Court were not deposited by the review opportunities to satisfy this Court for review of the said order dated 12.12.2024 Decision 10. (i) (ii) (iii) July 29, 202 Ajay 69-2025 and 10389-CII-2025 in CR-1143-2022 referred to the Mediation but to no avail. Even the costs imposed by this Court were not deposited by the review opportunities. No cause much less cogent cause has been brought forth so as to satisfy this Court for review of the said order dated 12.12.2024 In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is directed as under: The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. , 2025 10 to no avail. Even the costs imposed by this Court were not deposited by the review-applicant despite repeated much less cogent cause has been brought forth so as to satisfy this Court for review of the said order dated 12.12.2024. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is directed as under: The review application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE to no avail. Even the costs imposed by this despite repeated much less cogent cause has been brought forth so as In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is directed as under: Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document