Judgment · High Court · 2026

Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate & Ms. Sukriti Kaur, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Respondent No.7 in person. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL)

#1. The present is a review application filed by the applicant/petitioner under Order 47, Rule-1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking review of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by this Court in CWP-3414-

#2. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has submitted that by way of the aforesaid judgment dated 12.02.2026, the writ petition was dismissed and a committee has been constituted to determine the quantum of compensation payable to the private respondents. The applicant/petitioner seeks modification of the judgment to the extent that the applicant-Society RA-CW-159-2026 in CWP-3414-2026 -2- will pay the entire amount, once determined, within 21 days and until such determination and payment, no auction proceedings may be undertaken. He further submitted that an affidavit to this effect was filed, which finds mention in the order dated 23.04.2026. He also submitted that the applicant/petitioner may be protected only for 21 days after the amount is ascertained.

#2. On the other hand, Mr. Aashish Yadav, learned Additional Advocate, General, Haryana submitted that the present review application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. He further submitted that the litigation between the applicant/petitioner and private respondents has a long and chequered history and no further indulgence may be granted to the applicant/Society by way of filing of a review application.

#3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Respondent No.7 has appeared in person and opposed the review application on the same grounds as advanced by learned counsel for the State and submitted that he is an elderly person and has been suffering from long number of years and therefore, no such indulgence may be granted to the applicant/petitioner in the present review application.

#4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also respondent No.7, who has appeared in person.

#5. This Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2026 had dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant/petitioner/Society. A perusal of the judgment would show that there has been a long and chequered history between the parties. The parties have already agreed for grant of RA-CW-159-2026 in CWP-3414-2026 -3- compensation to the private respondents but the dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The impugned orders were passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Cooperation and this Court dealt with all the issues raised by the applicant/petitioner and found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and rather observed that the learned Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Cooperation had rightly passed the orders and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

#6. The applicant/petitioner has taken various grounds in the present review application, i.e., non-consideration of the petitioner’s right to reasonable opportunity before coercive recovery, failure to consider pro-rata contribution of members in determination of compensation, misappreciation of Cooperative Society Principles, Error apparent regarding fixation of valuation date, non-consideration of foundational jurisdiction issue, failure to consider pendency of dispute on quantum, non-consideration of delay and escalation factors, impact on non-party members ignored, manifest injustice resulting from the judgment.

#7. Additional argument was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner that 21 days’ time may be granted after the quantum of compensation is determined.

#8. The scope of review is very limited. The Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Rehearing of a matter is impermissible in law and review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. This Court is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the RA-CW-159-2026 in CWP-3414-2026 -4- record. With regard to the to the scope of review, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan”, (2003) 13 SCC 515. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “16.While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CP are required to be referred to? In Perry Kansagra 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.

#17. After considering a 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 up as under: (Perry Kansagra case, SCC pp. 768- 69, para 15.1) "15.1. '33...."... (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 RA-CW-159-2026 in CWP-3414-2026 -5- not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be 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 invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."' (As observed in: Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33)" It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.

#18. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd., it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 a Rule 1 CPC.”

#9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that on none of the grounds taken by the applicant/petitioner should this Court exercise its review jurisdiction, as doing so would amount to sitting in appeal over its own order. Consequently, the present review application is devoid of merit and is RA-CW-159-2026 in CWP-3414-2026 hereby dismissed.

17.07.2026 Bhumika -6- (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

#1. Whether speaking/reasoned: 2. Whether reportable: JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No