AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
The instant Review Application has been filed by the applicants seeking review of the order/judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/471/2025.
Both the parties have been heard and the Review Application has been carefully considered.
The jurisdiction of review is limited and well circumscribed by the principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction. A review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely for obtaining a rehearing of the matter or for seeking reconsideration of the findings already recorded. The power of review can be exercised only on the grounds recognized under law, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicants or could not be produced earlier, or on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, has held that the power of review cannot be exercised for a fresh hearing or merely for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The error sought to be corrected must be apparent on the face of the record and must not require elaborate arguments for its establishment.
Similarly, in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, it has been reiterated that the scope of review is limited and the review forum cannot act as an appellate court over its own order by undertaking a fresh hearing and re-appreciation of the matter with a view to changing the conclusion already arrived at.
In Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. v. Motilal (Dead) through LRs., (2009) 14 SCC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that a review court does not sit in appeal over its own order and that rehearing of the matter is impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction.
Further, in Lily Thomas and others v. Union of India and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review may be exercised for correction of a mistake but not for substituting one view for another. The review jurisdiction cannot be treated as an appellate jurisdiction in disguise.
Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles, we have examined the grounds raised in the present Review Application. On such examination, we find that the applicants has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, nor has any new and important matter or evidence been brought on record which, despite due diligence, could not have been produced at the time of hearing of the original matter.
The grounds urged by the applicants essentially seek re-appreciation of the material already considered by the Tribunal and reconsideration of the findings recorded in the order/judgment under review. Such an exercise would amount to rehearing the matter on merits and is clearly beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
It is settled that the mere possibility of taking another view on the facts or law involved cannot constitute a ground for review. A review cannot be maintained merely because the applicants is dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants has failed to make out any ground falling within the parameters of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. No error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting interference with the order/judgment under review has been established.
Accordingly, the Review Application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Any pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.