25.08.2025 Chander Bhushan Anand ...Review/ v. Chandigarh Administration and others
Case Details
RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)1(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101+102 RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 Date of Decision :25.08.2025 Chander Bhushan Anand ...Review/Applicant Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 Devinder Kumar Singla ...Review/Applicant Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:
Legal Reasoning
by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 26.03.2025, which is sought to be reviewed in the present review application, which cannot be allowed. 6. As per settled principle of law, under the garb of review petition, the review(cid:25)applicants cannot be allowed to re(cid:25)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 (cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:19) (cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:8)(cid:26) (cid:8)!(cid:31)!"(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:12)#(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:8)$%(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)%(cid:7)#(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)&(cid:2)(cid:5) ’(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)#(cid:12)((cid:5)#(cid:12)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:8)!)(cid:16)(cid:31)!(cid:16)!(cid:31)!". Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:(cid:25) 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 AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)4(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 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 invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:5)&(cid:2)(cid:6) *%(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:11)+(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:5)&(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:8),(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)-(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:27).(cid:29).(cid:20)(cid:8))(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:8)"/. (cid:8) 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:(cid:25) 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 AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)5(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 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 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." 8. While deciding the same issue of review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ,(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:8)0(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:9)%(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:8)0(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:27)..(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:8)/(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:8)(cid:29)(cid:27)1(cid:8) held that an error which is not self(cid:25)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 AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)6(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 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:(cid:25) 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 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"." 9. The said decision has already been followed by this Court in ,(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)2(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:26)%(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)34(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)5%(cid:3)#(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:8)!(cid:31)!!(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:21) (cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:8),6(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:28)"(cid:29). Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:(cid:25) "The counsel has further in his arguments sought to raise the points of self-contradictions self contradictions and self self- defeating 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) 458 458;; 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 AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)7(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 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." 10. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:8)4(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:11)% (cid:17)0(cid:12)(cid:2)#(cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:26)%(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)3(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:8)4(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:8)7(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:26)#(cid:8)’%(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)4(cid:2)+(cid:2)(cid:13) (cid:2)(cid:7)#(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:17)!(cid:31)!(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:27)"(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:8) held as under:(cid:25) “6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost require requirement ment 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 attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.' 9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of th the e 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 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. AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)8(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 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 tthehe exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.' " 8. 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 i 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 conferre 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 9. 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. 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 decisiT.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).” 11. Keeping in view the above, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the review applications are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected 12. case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE August 25, 2025 (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:17) (cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:9) (cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:17) AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) (in both the petitions). Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate & Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent(cid:25)U.T., Chandigarh. * * * (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:20) 1. Present review applications have been filed for the review of the AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)2(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWP(cid:25)4478(cid:25)2010 and other connected cases. 2. Learned counsel for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) argues that the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court needs to be reviewed as no separate notice was served under Section 8(cid:25)A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, ‘1952 Act’) or under the rules framed thereunder. 2. Learned counsel for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) further argues that though Rule 9(cid:25)A of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, (for short, '1960 Rules’) has been noticed by the Court but the same has not been dealt with by the Court while passing the order dated 26.03.2025. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that after noticing Section 8(cid:25)A of the 1952 Act and Rule 9(cid:25)A of the 1960 Rules, the findings have also been given by the Court. The fact as to whether a particular notice was given under Section 8(cid:25)A of the 1952 Act, has been dealt with by the Court even while taking into consideration the challenge to levy of penalty upon misuse. 5. Further, review of the order is only permissible in case there is any incorrect fact which has been relied upon by the Court to arrive at a conclusion whereas, no such incorrect fact has been pointed out by the learned Court for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) before this Court rather the AARTI SHARMA 2025.08.27 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)232(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)3614(cid:3)2012 & (cid:3)3(cid:3) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)233(cid:3)2025 in CWP(cid:3)4478(cid:3)2010 endeavour of the learned Court for the review(cid:25)applicant(s) is to reargue the case so that this Court arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at