IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103 Food Corporation of India M/s Goldy and Goldy CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) review of the judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in main Civil Revision No.723 of certain material aspects escaped notice of this the judgment under review, particularly regarding the nature of the order dated 30.09.2010, the maintainability of the application filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the circumstances leading to delayed deposit of Munadi fee and the ch 27.10.2014. have perused the record. review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review cannot be treated as RA-CR-88-2026 in CR-723-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CR-88-2026 in CR Date of decision : Food Corporation of India …..Review Versus M/s Goldy and Goldy CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the review-applicant/petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in main Civil Revision No.723 of 2018. Learned counsel for the review certain material aspects escaped notice of this the judgment under review, particularly regarding the nature of the order dated 30.09.2010, the maintainability of the application filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the circumstances leading to delayed deposit of Munadi fee and the challenge to the order dated 27.10.2014. I have heard learned counsel for the review have perused the record. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review cannot be treated as 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2026 in CR-723-2018 Date of decision :-01.07.2026 Review-Applicant/Petitioner …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA petitioner. Present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in the Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that certain material aspects escaped notice of this Court while rendering the judgment under review, particularly regarding the nature of the order dated 30.09.2010, the maintainability of the application filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the circumstances leading to delayed allenge to the order dated I have heard learned counsel for the review-applicant and At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review cannot be treated as VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document an appeal in disguise, nor can it be permitted to become a forum for rehearing and re adjudicated upon. Review is maintainable only in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despit exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. review-applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already recorded in the judgment dated 06.05.2026. The contentions sought to be raised with regard to the dismissal order dated 30.09.2010, the applicabil of Order IX Rule 4 CPC vis explanation regarding deposit of Munadi fee, and the alleged challenge to the order dated 27.10.2014, were all matters which either stood considered by this Court while deciding the Civil Revision or were available on the record at the relevant time. that the Execution Petition had been dismissed on two distinct grounds, namely, non process fee and Munadi fee as well as non the decree merely under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was insufficient and that the relief sought by the petitioner suffered from an inherent legal defect. The said finding was arrived at after due consideration of 30.09.2010 and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. RA-CR-88-2026 in CR-723-2018 n appeal in disguise, nor can it be permitted to become a forum for rehearing and re-appreciation of issues already considered and adjudicated upon. Review is maintainable only in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despit exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A perusal of the review application reveals that the applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already recorded in the judgment dated 06.05.2026. The contentions sought to be raised with regard to the dismissal order dated 30.09.2010, the applicabil of Order IX Rule 4 CPC vis-a-vis Order IX Rule 9 CPC explanation regarding deposit of Munadi fee, and the alleged challenge to the order dated 27.10.2014, were all matters which either stood considered by this Court while deciding the Civil Revision or were available on the record at the relevant time. The judgment under review records a categorical finding that the Execution Petition had been dismissed on two distinct grounds, namely, non-compliance of Court directions regarding process fee and Munadi fee as well as non ree-holder. Consequently, this Court held that an application merely under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was insufficient and that the relief sought by the petitioner suffered from an inherent legal defect. The said finding was arrived at after due consideration of 30.09.2010 and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 2 n appeal in disguise, nor can it be permitted to become a forum for appreciation of issues already considered and adjudicated upon. Review is maintainable only in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A perusal of the review application reveals that the applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already recorded in the judgment dated 06.05.2026. The contentions sought to be raised with regard to the dismissal order dated 30.09.2010, the applicability vis Order IX Rule 9 CPC, the explanation regarding deposit of Munadi fee, and the alleged challenge to the order dated 27.10.2014, were all matters which either stood considered by this Court while deciding the Civil Revision or were available on the record at the relevant time. The judgment under review records a categorical finding that the Execution Petition had been dismissed on two distinct compliance of Court directions regarding process fee and Munadi fee as well as non-appearance on behalf of holder. Consequently, this Court held that an application merely under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was insufficient and that the relief sought by the petitioner suffered from an inherent legal defect. The said finding was arrived at after due consideration of the order dated 30.09.2010 and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document stood challenged through subsequent proceedings was also within the knowledge of the review review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to supplement arguments, fill up omissions, or seek a different view on the same set of facts. unavailable despite due diligence at the time o Revision Petition. Equally, no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. What is sought, in substance, is a rehearing of the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. ambit and cannot be converted into an appellate exercise merely because another view is possible or because the applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already returned by the Court. Supreme Court in "Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another" SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as follows: - RA-CR-88-2026 in CR-723-2018 Similarly, the contention that the order dated 27.10.2014 stood challenged through subsequent proceedings was also within the knowledge of the review-applicant and formed pa review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to supplement arguments, fill up omissions, or seek a different view on the same set of facts. No new material has been brought on record which was unavailable despite due diligence at the time o Revision Petition. Equally, no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. What is sought, in substance, is a rehearing of the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. It is well settled that review proceedings have a limited ambit and cannot be converted into an appellate exercise merely because another view is possible or because the applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already returned by the Court. Reliance is placed on a recent Supreme Court in "Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another" SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as - "15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred bylaw on the authority or the Court. Sect Order 47. Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from 3 Similarly, the contention that the order dated 27.10.2014 stood challenged through subsequent proceedings was also within the applicant and formed part of the record. The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to supplement arguments, fill up omissions, or seek a different view on the same set of facts. No new material has been brought on record which was unavailable despite due diligence at the time of hearing of the Civil Revision Petition. Equally, no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. What is sought, in substance, is a rehearing of the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. at review proceedings have a limited ambit and cannot be converted into an appellate exercise merely because another view is possible or because the applicant seeks reconsideration of findings already returned by the Court. Reliance is placed on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another" SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as "15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred bylaw on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47. Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court, the review within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC warranting interference with the judgment dated 06.05.2026. RA-CR-88-2026 in CR-723-2018 appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rulel of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court its own order. A rehearing of the matter is an impermissible .It constitutes exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriag to correct grave and palpable errors." In view of the above and in the considered opinion of this Court, the review-applicant has failed to make out any ground falling within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 arranting interference with the judgment dated 06.05.2026. 4 appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rulel of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is an impermissible .It constitutes exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors." the considered opinion of this applicant has failed to make out any ground falling within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 arranting interference with the judgment dated 06.05.2026. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document same is accordingly of. July 01, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RA-CR-88-2026 in CR-723-2018 Finding no merit in the present Review Application, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 5 Finding no merit in the present Review Application, the Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document