Dismissed¶22

Himachal Pradesh University v. Sanjeet Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CMP.M/261/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed; condonation of delay 120 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; error apparent on face of record; review not an appeal in disguise; reiteration of grounds; Execution Petition No.30 of 2025; judgment dated 26.09.2025; Himachal Pradesh University vs. Dr. Sanjeet Sharma; 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; HP High Court Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; RP No.28 of 2026; CMP.M No.261 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 120 days' delay in filing the review petition (CMP.M No.261 of 2026 disposed of); the review petition itself dismissed with no relief on the merits of the review. ¶22

Himachal Pradesh University Vs Sanjeet Sharma — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of 120 days' delay in filing the review petition (CMP.M No.261 of 2026 disposed of); the review petition itself dismissed with no relief on the merits of the review.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 120 days in filing the accompanying review petition has been sufficiently explained and should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Delay of 120 days in filing the review petition has been sufficiently explained and is condoned; the petition is to be registered and the limitation application stands disposed of.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

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 and finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case.

¶16

Key takeaways

The submission that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted.ratio¶16
No material irregularity manifest in the order undermines its correctness or results in miscarriage of justice; review is not an appeal in disguise entitling a party to a rehearing simply because it wants the decision to be otherwise.ratio¶19
In view of the foregoing and the principles laid down in the cited judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the review petition is dismissed and pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — RP No.28 of 2026, decided 07.04.2026. Delay of 120 days in filing Review Petition No.28 of 2026, brought by Himachal Pradesh University & Ors. against Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (CMP.M No.261 of 2026 disposed of). The review petition directed against this Court's order/judgment dated 26.09.2025 in Execution Petition No.30 of 2025 was dismissed: the grounds raised merely reiterated those already urged in the execution proceedings; review jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of facts already considered, a review petition is not an appeal in disguise, and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated. Reliance placed on M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, and on Kunha Yammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359; Akhilesh Yadav, (2013) 2 SCC 1; Kamlesh Verma, (2013) 8 SCC 320; and N.Anantha Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 534.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RP No.28 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

¶3

_________________________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh University & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Dr. Sanjeet Sharma …....Respondentpondentondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶4

……...Petitioners Versus …....Respondentpondentondent

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Petitioners: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________________

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

CMP.M No.261 of 2026

¶9

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

¶10

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 petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the

¶11

¶12

circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay of 120 days in filing the reivew petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of.

¶13

Review Petition No.28 of 2026

¶14

By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to review the order/judgment dated 26.09.2025, passed by this Court in Execution Petition No.30 of 2025.

¶15

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

¶16

5. 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 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:

¶17

¶18

“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)

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

April 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Himachal Pradesh University v. Sanjeet Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himachal Pradesh University v. Sanjeet Sharma

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

Dinesh Chander Sharma Vs State of Hp

Bhagat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Ramesh Sharma

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Mohd. Vajid

Ashvjot Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Ranjta Vs Kirti Pal

Rajesh Kumar Vs Chander Mohan