National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director Lucknow vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

We have perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and find that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the review application. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶13

The delay condonation application is allowed.

¶14

Order on Review Application

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶16

No grounds are made with regard to the review of the impugned order passed by this Court. We do not see any reason to modify or review the order passed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant wishes to now produce judgements before this Court that could not be relied upon by him during the time of argument in the writ petition.

¶18

We are of the view that such arguments and placing of new judgements are not allowed in a review petition. There is no question of allowing this review petition to turn into an appeal.

¶19

It is to be noted that review jurisdiction is a limited jurisdiction and is governed by certain principles that have been summarized in the

¶20

CMRAD No. 36 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

judgment of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees; 2019 SCC Online Cal 9181 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶23

"3…….On a reading and comprehension of the Supreme Court judgments on this issue the following principles emerges :-

¶24

A. The power to review is inherent in the High Court and the High Court can review its own order/judgment passed in a writ petition.

¶25

B. This power of review is a limited power and would be governed by the principles of section 151 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶26

C. Firstly, a Court can review its own judgment when there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was in spite of exercise of due diligence not within the knowledge or could not be produced due to cogent reasons by the party seeking a review. Secondly, the Court may review its order or judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Thirdly, a residuary clause in rule 1 of Order 47 provides for a review 'for any other sufficient reason'. It is to be noted that the Apex Court on several occasions has hold that the third condition "for any other sufficient reason" has to be read within the four corners of the first to conditions.

¶27

D. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶28

E. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". There is a sharp distinction between an erroneous decision that can be only appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review.

¶29

[See Sasi (D through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, paras 15-18; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, paras 7-10; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, para3]

¶30

4. One more aspect of the matter needs to be kept in mind regarding finality of judgments being left in suspense and the same has been exquisitely described by Justice Krishna Iyer in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India reported in (1980) 2 SCR 889; (1980) 4 SCC 680 wherein he laments and states:

¶31

“……..unchecked review has never been the rule. It must be supported by proper

¶32

CMRAD No. 36 of 2026

¶33

3

¶34

grounds. Otherwise, every disappointed litigant may avenge his defeat by a routine review adventure and thus obstruct the disposal of the ‘virgin’ dockets waiting in the long queue for preliminary screening or careful final hearing………..”

¶35

5. Justice Iyer goes on to further state as follows:

¶36

“Frivolous motions for review would ignite the gambling' element in litigation with the finality of judgments even by the highest court, being left in suspense. If, every vanquished party has a filing at ‘review’ lucky dip and if, perchance, notice were issued in some cases to the opponent the latter-and, of course, the former, - would be put to great expense and anxiety. The very solemnity of finality, so crucial to judicial justice, would be frustrated if such a game were to become popular.””

¶37

In view of the principles enunciated above, the review application appears to be an appeal in disguise, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶38

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶39

May 6, 2026 Ashutosh

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director Lucknow v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director Lucknow v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Northern Refrigeration Company Thru. Authorized Representative Jank Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Goldar Hospital Thru. Proprietor and Managing Director Sri Manish Kumar Goldar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 4 Others

Atam Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others