2026:JHHC:17967 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.73 of 2022 ------ Hydrochem Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., through one of its Directors- Anil Saraf, aged about 62 years, son of Late Chiman Lal Saraf, presently resident of Asha Apartment, 93-DPS Road, P.O. and P.S. Charu Market, Kolkata, District 24 Parganas (West Bengal) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking, having its registered Office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), P.O. and P.S. Bandra, District Mumbai (Maharashtra) 2. Executive Director, Incharge-Lubes, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), P.O. and P.S. Bandra, District Mumbai (Maharashtra) 3. Chief Manager (Lubes-Input), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), P.O. and P.S. Bandra, District Mumbai (Maharashtra) 4. Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), P.O. and P.S. Bandra, District Mumbai (Maharashtra) .... .... .... Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Anish Kamal, Advocate Ms. Kanu Priya, Advocate ------ 06/19.06.2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil review has been filed to review the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2427 of 2014. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the writ court may kindly be modified to the effect that the order was placed with the petitioner for supply of 35.40 MTs of Lanoline. In spite of the order placed and reminders given, the supply was not made by the petitioner. He submits that this has occurred inadvertently and in view of that the said order may kindly be reviewed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that against the said order, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.240 of 2021 and the said L.P.A. has been dismissed vide judgment dated 13.06.2022 and the said order has already been affirmed. On these grounds, he submits that there is no error on the face of the record to review the 2026:JHHC:17967 order of the writ court. 5. It is an admitted position that the writ petition was disposed by order dated 20.01.2021 and against that the writ petitioner has preferred L.P.A. which was also dismissed by the judgment dated 13.06.2022 observing therein that when the order passed by the learned Single Judge based upon the concession furnished on behalf of appellant/writ petitioner, it is not available for the appellant-writ petitioner to assail the order. 6. In view of above, there is no apparent error on the face of the record. Civil Review petition can be entertained only when apparent error occurred on the face of the record. 7. Accordingly, the review petition, is hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 22.06.2026