AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the review applicant as well as Shri Shreyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and perused the record.
The present review application has been filed for review of order dated November 10, 2025, by virtue of the said order, following order was passed:
"3.Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority submits that present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of 20 years. He further submits that the proceedings have been completed in 2006 and the award against the petitioner was pronounced on September 24, 2009.
4.In light of the above submissions, we are of the view that the petitioner has no longer locus standi to file present writ petition and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.
5.Accordingly, we do not see it fit to interfere in this writ petition after a gap of 20 years and the writ petition is dismissed."
In the counter affidavit, the State has brought on record the award dated September 24, 2009.
The review applicant has filed this review application raising the ground that the High Court while passing the order ignored the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, no such law has been placed before us in Court today.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and having gone through the present review application, we find that no sufficient ground is shown by the applicants to entertain the review application. The entire endeavour of the applicants is to re-argue the entire case afresh which is not permissible. The grounds raised herein were already taken by the applicants before this court and the same were considered and decided in the aforesaid writ petition.
It is settled law that an application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. The review power can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. As per the rule an error must be such that it is apparent on the face of the record and not an error, which has to be searched. It must be an error of inadvertence.
A court of review has only a limited jurisdiction and it can allow a review on the following grounds; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the dictionary meaning of word "review", in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, has taken the view that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute, dealing with exercise of power; the review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, and mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground of review.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & another, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537, has emphasized that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits. It was further held that the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, reported in JT 2002 (1) 197, has disapproved the judgment of High Court, wherein earlier writ petition was disposed of by High Court being infructuous and giving some directions, and subsequent to the same, review was sought, which was allowed, same was clearly termed to be overstepping of jurisdiction, and amounting to giving of one more chance of hearing.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. B. Valluvar, reported in 2006 (8) SCC 686, has again considered the parameters of review jurisdiction of High Court and held that the same shall be exercised within the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule of C.P.C.,and without recording finding as to there existed an error apparent on the face of the record, merit cannot be gone into.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohila, reported in 2007 (1) SCC 457, has taken the view that in the garb of clarification application, recourse to achieve the result of review application, cannot be permitted, as what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others, reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320, held as under:
"19.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. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the Principles:
20.Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:-
(i)Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii)Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii)Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337.
22.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i)A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii)Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii)Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv)Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v)A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi)The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii)The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii)The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix)Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
(emphasis added)
We make it clear that the grounds of review are limited. Even the Calcutta High Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees; reported in 2019 SCC Online Cal 9181, has summarized certain governing principles with regards to review applications. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"3…….On a reading and comprehension of the Supreme Court judgments on this issue the following principles emerges :-
A. The power to review is inherent in the High Court and the High Court can review its own order/judgment passed in a writ petition.
B. This power of review is a limited power and would be governed by the principles of section 151 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
C. Firstly, a Court can review its own judgment when there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was in spite of exercise of due diligence not within the knowledge or could not be produced due to cogent reasons by the party seeking a review. Secondly, the Court may review its order or judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Thirdly, a residuary clause in rule 1 of Order 47 provides for a review 'for any other sufficient reason'. It is to be noted that the Apex Court on several occasions has hold that the third condition "for any other sufficient reason" has to be read within the four corners of the first to conditions.
D. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
E. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". There is a sharp distinction between an erroneous decision that can be only appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review.
[See Sasi (D through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, paras 15-18; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, paras 7-10; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, para3]
4.One more aspect of the matter needs to be kept in mind regarding finality of judgments being left in suspense and the same has been exquisitely described by Justice Krishna Iyer in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India reported in (1980) 2 SCR 889; (1980) 4 SCC 680 wherein he laments and states:
“……..unchecked review has never been the rule. It must be supported by proper grounds. Otherwise, every disappointed litigant may avenge his defeat by a routine review adventure and thus obstruct the disposal of the ‘virgin’ dockets waiting in the long queue for preliminary screening or careful final hearing………..”
5.Justice Iyer goes on to further state as follows:
“Frivolous motions for review would ignite the gambling' element in litigation with the finality of judgments even by the highest court, being left in suspense. If, every vanquished party has a filing at ‘review’ lucky dip and if, perchance, notice were issued in some cases to the opponent the latter-and, of course, the former, - would be put to great expense and anxiety. The very solemnity of finality, so crucial to judicial justice, would be frustrated if such a game were to become popular.””
(emphasis added)
On the touchstone of the above dicta, it is clear that the review is permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of record i.e. error should be grave and palpable, and the error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of record, without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning, and reappraisal of entire evidence for finding the error, as same would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. It is up to the applicant(s) to satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered at a subsequent stage could not have been discovered or produced at the initial stage, even after exercising due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.
On perusal of judgment under review passed by this court, it is apparently evident the writ petition in question was dismissed and there appears no apparent mistake. A review court cannot examine the merits of the judgment as an appellate court does, nor can it permit a rehearing of the matter under the guise of a review application.
The grounds raised in the instant review application has already been dealt with and considered in the judgment dated November 10, 2025, which is under review.
The review application sans merit and the same is accordingly rejected.