Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135544 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 51 of 2025 Applicant :- Leelu And 5 Others Opposite Party :- Shyam Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing review petition. 2. Delay in filing review petition is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Order on Review Petition 1. Sri Mahendra Pratap, Advocate is one of the counsel, who has filed this review petition. At the outset, he seeks adjournment that this matter is to be argued by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, the other filing counsel. However, the prayer is rejected. 2. It is not under much dispute that this Court by a very reasoned order allowed writ petition filed by writ petitioners vide judgment under review dated 16.08.2023. Applicants herein thereafter has approached Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6845 of 2024, which was dismissed by following order dated 17.04.2025: “Delay condoned. Permission to file special leave petition(s) is rejected. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all pending application(s).” 3. Learned counsel for applicants placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (Civil Appeal no. 2432 of 2019), decided on 01.03.2019 wherein an earlier judgment passed by Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another, (2000)6 SCC 359 was referred and relied on that in case the Supreme Court has decided Special Leave Petition in limine, it may be a ground of filing review petition. 4. I have considered the above submission. Since in the present case even the permission to file Special Leave Petition was rejected by Supreme Court, therefore, no case is made out to interfere with judgment under review. The facts of present case are different from Kunhayammed (supra). 5. Otherwise also, law with regard to scope of review has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer and another, AIR 2023 SC 5636 and relevant para thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) 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 necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 6. As referred in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra), in order to exercise power of review there must be an error apparent on face of it. In the garb of review application the Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court. I have perused the affidavit, however, there is no ground which would fall under any of the circumstances under which review can be maintained. 7. I, therefore, do not find any ground to allow this review petition. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad