***

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL) --

CM-4083-LPA-2025

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 38 days in re-filing the review application.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 38 days in re-filing the review application, is hereby condoned.

CM-4084-LPA-2025

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 139 days in filing the review application.

Learned counsel for the applicants, who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing, submitted that considering the grounds mentioned in the application, the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application may be allowed.

Considering the grounds mentioned in the application, we deem it fit and proper to allow the present application.

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the delay of 139 days in filing the review application, is hereby condoned.

RA-LP-41-2025

1. The present application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA-1110-2023.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants, who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing, submitted that in the aforesaid judgment dated 20.09.2024, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, he submitted that in the aforesaid judgment dated 20.09.2024, it was so observed that the applicants-appellants did not appear for counselling and thereafter, there are contrary findings in the aforesaid judgment. He further submitted that the aforesaid judgment was assailed by filing SLP No.3168 of 2025 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, as may be so advised, and therefore, the aforesaid judgment dated 20.09.2024 may be reviewed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, who has appeared through video conferencing.

4. By way of the aforesaid judgment dated 20.09.2024, the plea taken by the applicants, who were the appellants, was considered and the appeal was dismissed. However, at the end of the judgment, costs were imposed upon respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Land Records, Punjab as because of his conduct, the applicants were compelled to go in for litigation. Be that as it may, the appeal was dismissed after discussing the entire merits of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, who was also the counsel for the appellants in the appeal. The judgment dated 20.09.2024 has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. The order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP is reproduced as under:-

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition reserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as may be so advised, in accordance with law.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for.”

5. It is a settled law that 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. With regard to the scope of review, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Murali Sundaram versus 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 CPC 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 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.”

6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground is made out for reviewing the aforesaid judgment dated 20.09.2024.

7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present review application and the same is hereby dismissed.

Application dismissed.

********