***

NIDHI GUPTA J. (ORAL) –

1. The present review application has been filed seeking review of order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court.

2. On 09.3.2026, the following order was passed by this Court :-

“Prayer in the present revision petition is for issuance of directions to the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra/Appellate Authority for deciding the application for stay bearing CM-622-2024 (Annexure P-5) in a time bound manner.

Petitioner Satbeer Kaur is present in person. She submits that she is not in a position to effectively prosecute the present revision petition without legal assistance and, therefore, requests that a Legal Aid Counsel be appointed to represent her in the present matter. She further submits that Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, who is present in Court and is already appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for her in two other matters, may be appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on her behalf in the present case also.

The request made by the petitioner appears to be genuine and reasonable. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, who is present in Court, submits that she has no objection to her appointment as Legal Aid Counsel in the present matter. Accordingly, Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, is hereby appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner in the present case.

The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) concerned is directed to process the appointment of the aforesaid counsel and ensure that the admissible fee and other charges, as per the applicable Legal Services Authority Rules and Schedule of Fees, are paid to the appointed Legal Aid Counsel for the work done in the present case.

At this stage, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several errors apparent in the drafting of the present revision petition, which require correction and proper incorporation of necessary particulars. She, therefore, prays that the present revision petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars.

Permitted to do so.

Consequently, the present civil revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with better particulars, if so advised and in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.”

3. At the outset, it is apposite to notice that vide order dated 09.03.2026, this Court had permitted the petitioner, on her own request made through learned Legal Aid Counsel, to withdraw the civil revision petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. The said liberty was granted after recording the statement of learned counsel that there were several errors apparent in the drafting of the petition, which necessitated withdrawal and refiling.

4. Having heard the review-applicant, appearing in person, and perused the record, this Court finds that the present review application is wholly misconceived and not maintainable.

5. It is a settled proposition of law that the power of review is extremely limited in scope and can be exercised only in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A review proceeding cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked for re-agitating issues or seeking a rehearing on merits.

6. In the present case, the order dated 09.03.2026 was passed on the specific request made on behalf of the petitioner herself, seeking permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. The Court merely acceded to the said request and granted liberty accordingly. Once the petitioner has consciously opted to withdraw the petition with such liberty, she cannot be permitted to turn around and seek review of the very order which was passed at her own instance.

7. No ground has been made out to show that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 09.03.2026. There is neither any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. The present application, in effect, seeks to recall or undo a voluntary act of withdrawal, which is impermissible in law.

8. It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner has already been granted liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars, if so advised, and in accordance with law. Therefore, an efficacious remedy already stands available to the petitioner, and the present review application appears to be an attempt to circumvent the said course.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present review application.

10. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Application dismissed.

********