Review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking re-hearing of the writ judgment. Relying on the Supreme Court's limits on review jurisdiction, the Court held the petition sought an appeal in disguise and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC with Mr. Archana Kumari, Mr. G.S Rathore, Mr. A.N. Choubey, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
O R D E R % 17.01.2025
REVIEW PET. 12/2025
“16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:03:23
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. 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.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 17, 2025/ SU/F/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:03:23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the judgment dated 05.12.2024.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer & Anr.Relied on¶2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhash Chand
Union of India
Navin Chawla
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
