The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a review petition lodged under RP No. 85 of 2024, rejecting submissions that the judgment suffered from error apparent on the face of the record.
Review Petition No. 85 of 2024 dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
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.
2024:HHC:8215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RP No. 85 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.09.2024
_________________________________________________________________________ Yogindra Kapoor
| Versus |
……...Petitioner |
|---|---|
| …....Respondents |
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to review the judgment dated 15.05.2024, passed by this Court in Execution Petition No. 52 of 2023 alongwith with connected execution petitions.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case.
3. The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in execution proceedings. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and
2024:HHC:8215
2
finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held:
“11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377)
4. In the case at hand grounds raised for reviewing of judgment are nothing, but reiteration of grounds already taken in execution proceedings. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.
5. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and
2024:HHC:8215
3
Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359, Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 534 , the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
September 09, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (Manjit) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition constitutes an appeal in disguise for re-appreciation of facts and material irregularity manifest in the order lacking. Can the finality of a judgment be questioned by openin
Whether the grounds raised in the current review petition constitute a patent error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by the court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra PradeshExplained¶19
M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 · Who else cites this
Kunha Yammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and AnotherApplied¶24
Kunha Yammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359 · Who else cites this
Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath ChaturvediApplied¶24
Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & OrsApplied¶24
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and OthersApplied¶24
N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 534 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogindra Kapoor
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
