Satbeer Ka v. Des Raj an Raj & Ors.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Ad , Advocate, who is present in Court and is already ady appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for her in tw n two other matters, may be appointed as Legal Aid l Aid Counsel on her behalf in the present case also. The request mad made by the petitioner appears to be genuine and reas reasonable. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, who is pres present in Court, submits that she has no objection to n to her appointment as Legal Aid Counsel in the pr e present matter. Accordingly, Ms. Manvi Verma, Adv Advocate, is hereby appointed as Legal Aid Counsel nsel for the petitioner in the present case. The Secretary, ry, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) conce oncerned is directed to process the appointment of th of the aforesaid counsel and ensure that the admissi missible fee and other charges, as per the applicable able Legal Services Authority Rules and Schedule o le of Fees, are paid to the appointed Legal Aid Co d Counsel for the work done in the present case. At this stage, lear , learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner submits th its that there are several errors apparent in the draftin rafting of the present revision petition, which requir quire correction and proper incorporation of nec necessary particulars. She, therefore, prays that th at the present revision petition may be permitted to be to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with with better particulars. Permitted to do s do so. Consequently, th y, the present civil revision petition is dismissed as d as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file a ile a fresh petition with better VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 3 particulars, if so advis dvised and in accordance with law. Pending applicat lication(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.” At the outset, it is apposite to ite to notice that vide order dated

09.03.2026

3.2026, this Court had permitted th tted the petitioner, on her own request ma est made through learned Legal Aid l Aid Counsel, to withdraw the civil revisi revision petition with liberty to file o file a fresh petition with better particulars. culars. The said liberty was granted af nted after recording the statement of learned arned counsel that there were seve several errors apparent in the drafting of ing of the petition, which necessitated itated withdrawal and refiling. Having heard the review-appl applicant, appearing in person, and peruse perused the record, this Court find t finds that the present review application cation is wholly misconceived and not nd not maintainable. It is a settled proposition of la n of law that the power of review is extremel tremely limited in scope and can be ex be exercised only in cases where there is an is an error apparent on the face of t e of the record, or for any other sufficient r cient reason analogous thereto. A rev A review proceeding cannot be treated as a ed as an appeal in disguise, nor can it can it be invoked for re-agitating issues or se s or seeking a rehearing on merits. In the present case, the ord he order dated 09.03.2026 was passed on t ed on the specific request made on beh on behalf of the petitioner herself, seeking per ing permission to withdraw the petition petition with liberty to file afresh. The Court Court merely acceded to the said re said request and granted liberty accordingly rdingly. Once the petitioner has con s consciously opted to withdraw the petition etition with such liberty, she cannot b nnot be permitted to turn around VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 4 and seek r seek review of the very order whic which was passed at her own instance. No ground has been made ou ade out to show that there is any error appar apparent on the face of the record in t rd in the order dated 09.03.2026. There is n e is neither any patent illegality no lity nor any jurisdictional error warranting anting interference in exercise of revie f review jurisdiction. The present application cation, in effect, seeks to recall or all or undo a voluntary act of withdrawal n law. wal, which is impermissible in law. It is also pertinent to obser observe that the petitioner has already be dy been granted liberty to file a ile a fresh petition with better particulars, culars, if so advised, and in accordan cordance with law. Therefore, an efficacious acious remedy already stands availabl vailable to the petitioner, and the present rev nt review application appears to be an o be an attempt to circumvent the course. said course In view of the above, this C this Court finds no merit in the present rev nt review application. Accordingly, the same is dism dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 April 02, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document