113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-11549-CWP-2026 IN/AND RA-CW-366-2026 IN CWP-18206-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ......PETITIONER Vs. No. 14574889K Ex. DAYA RAM AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Dr. Anju Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present review application has been filed after an inordinate delay of approximately one year, seeking review of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-18206- 2025. The limitation to file a review is 30 days but the applicants- petitioners have chosen to file the present review after a delay of almost 09 months and without any sufficient cause to show that delay beyond control of applicant. Hence, same cannot be condoned settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that each day’s delay has to be explained so that the decision could be taken whether the delay in filing was bona fide or not. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are as under:- “12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 2. Further, the review is on the ground that the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court is incorrect keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the order dated 07.07.2025 deserves to be reviewed. 3. As per the settled principle of law, incorrect judgment cannot be challenged in review as the scope of review is very narrow so as to correct any order, which is based upon any incorrect fact, which was relevant could not be brought to the notice of this Court. 4. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review-applicant-petitioners cannot be allowed to re-argue the case as the review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023 titled as S. Murali Sundaram vs.Jothibai Kannan and others decided on 24.02.2023. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:- (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. (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 longdrawn process of reasoning on the points 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 misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 5. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Prishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 has been held that it is only on discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made, the remedy of review may be exercised however, a review petition cannot be filed on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same will be province of a Court of appeal. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:- “3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of 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." 6. While deciding the same issue of review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 held that 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 the record justifying the exercise of power of review. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that review petition cannot be filed for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected and the said review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:- “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under O Order rder 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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"." 7. The said decision has already been followed by this Court in Paramjit Singh through LRs vs. Gurdial Singh and others, 2022 SCC Online P&H 1637. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:- "The counsel has further in his arguments sought to raise NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the points of self-contradictions self contradictions and self selfdefeating stands and which could not be taken into consideration in a review application and and it is well settled law as has sought to be relied upon by counsel for the respondent who has cited the judgments titled as 'Sasi (D) Through LRs. v. Aravindakshan Nair' (2017) 2 RCR (Civil) 363 and 'Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi' (1997) 4 RCR (Civil) 458; where the Apex Court has laid down that a review cannot be allowed to be disguised as an appeal for getting an erroneous decision reheard and corrected and has to be used within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to rectify any error patent on the records instead of assailing the orders on the appeals by this Court before the next Court the instant review has come about for a motivated cause. Since, this Court cannot come across any mistake or an error apparent on the records which could be self evident and any such interpretation that is sought to be put forth by the counsel for the applicant by process of reasoning cannot be considered at this juncture." 8. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others (2021) 13 SCC 1, held that review Court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment, rehearing of the matter is impermissible, the relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost require requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.' NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event is recovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that pronounced, exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 :2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] this Court held : (SCC p. 251, para 56) '56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.' " 7.The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. In v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844] , this Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferredd by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. Patel Narshi Thakershi v.Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [Patel Narshi Thakershi. 8.What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court in v. T. NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440] . It is held that such an error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappaon. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 110 11044 : AIR 1955 SC [233] , it is observed as under : (SCC p. 244, para 23).” 9. In the present case, the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the rule relied upon while deciding the writ petition has not been interpreted in its true letter and spirit. If the interpretation given by this Court to the said rule is incorrect, the appeal is maintainable and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present review application. 10. It may be noticed that the review applications are filed even without going through the jurisprudence as to under what circumstances review can be filed. In order to bring the appeal into limitation, the review applications are filed so that the appeal can be filed which also becomes time barred. Most of the time, there is no ground to file the review application especially when the ground taken can only be raised in appeal and not in review hence, in case any such review application come henceforth, which is not maintainable and has only been filed to bring the appeal into the limitation, the same shall be dealt with strictly. 11. Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed hereinbefore, the review application which has been filed by the applicant- petitioners is only to re-argue the case so as to contend that the findings recorded by the Court is not correct, hence the review application is not NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 12. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Present review application which is time barred also is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 22, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document