Dismissed¶26

Yash Pal Bansal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 May 2025CMP.M/409/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed; condonation of delay 37 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; CMP.M No. 409 of 2025; review not an appeal in disguise; error apparent on face of record rejected; grounds mere reiteration of writ grounds; finality of judgment; CWP No. 3157 of 2023; Yash Pal Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; judgment dated 12.12.2024; Sandeep Sharma J.; Thungabhadra Industries AIR 1964 SC 1372; Kunha Yammed (2000)6 SCC 359; Akhilesh Yadav (2013)2 SCC 1; Kamlesh Verma (2013)8 SCC 320; N. Anantha Reddy (2013)15 SCC 534; RP No. 23 of 2025; decided 01.05.2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 37 days in filing the review petition condoned (CMP.M No. 409 of 2025 disposed of); the review petition itself dismissed, with no relief granted on merits. ¶26

Yash Pal Bansal Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 37 days in filing the review petition condoned (CMP.M No. 409 of 2025 disposed of); the review petition itself dismissed, with no relief granted on merits.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the accompanying review petition ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Delay of 37 days in filing the accompanying review petition is condoned: it was neither intentional nor deliberate, occurred on account of circumstances completely beyond the applicant's control, and has been sufficiently explained; the petition is to be registered and the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate facts already considered and urged; a review petition cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case.

¶17

Key takeaways

The grounds raised in the review petition are nothing but a reiteration of the grounds urged in the writ proceedings, and the submission that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted.ratio¶17
This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order undermining its correctness or resulting in miscarriage of justice; review is not an appeal in disguise entitling a party to be heard simply because it wants the decision to be otherwise.ratio¶21
In view of the above and the principles laid down in the cited Supreme Court judgments (Kunha Yammed, Akhilesh Yadav, Kamlesh Verma, N. Anantha Reddy), the present review petition is dismissed and pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.), RP No. 23 of 2025, decided 01.05.2025: By CMP.M No. 409 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the 37-day delay in filing a review petition against the judgment dated 12.12.2024 in CWP No. 3157 of 2023 (Yash Pal Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) was condoned as neither intentional nor deliberate and sufficiently explained. The review petition was, however, dismissed: the grounds raised merely reiterated those urged in the writ proceedings; review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be equated with the original hearing or used to reopen the case; the plea of error apparent on the face of the record was rejected; and no material irregularity undermining the correctness of the order or causing miscarriage of justice was found. Reliance was placed on M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372; Kunha Yammed v. State of Kerala, (2000)6 SCC 359; Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013)8 SCC 320; and N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria, (2013)15 SCC 534.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RP No. 23 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025

¶3

_________________________________________________________________________ Yash Pal Bansal

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. _______________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

CMP.M No. 409 of 2025

¶10

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying review petition.

¶11

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is

¶12

¶13

neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay of 37 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of.

¶14

Review Petition No. 23 of 2025

¶15

By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to review the judgment dated 12.12.2024, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3157 of 2023 titled as Yash Pal Bansal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case.

¶17

4. The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in writ 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 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

¶18

¶19

M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held:

¶20

“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)

¶21

In the case at hand grounds raised for reviewing of judgment are nothing, but reiteration of grounds already taken before writ 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.

¶22

Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and

¶23

Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359, Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, Kamlesh Verma

¶24

¶25

vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu

¶26

Kathuria and Others, 4 (2013)15 SCC 534, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶27

May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Yash Pal Bansal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Pal Bansal v. the State of Hp and 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

Sudesh Kumari Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ganesh Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shobha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others

Rakesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Ors.