A review application sought to undo a court order permitting the petitioner to withdraw her civil revision petition with liberty to refile with better particulars. The court held review is limited to errors apparent on the record and cannot recall a voluntary act of withdrawal, and dismissed the application.
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.
RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
130
RA-CR-38-2026 in
Civil Revision N o.2197 of 2026 Date of decision :-02.04.2026
Satbeer Kaur
…..Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
Des Raj and others
…..Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Review Applicant-Petitione r Satbeer Kaur in person.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
The present review applic a tion has been filed seeking review of order dated 09.03.2026 (An n exure P-1) passed by this Court.
On 09.3.2026, the followi n g order was passed by this
Court :-
“Prayer in the present revision petition is for issuance of directi o ns to the learned Additional District Judge, Kur u kshetra/Appellate Authority for deciding the appl i cation for stay bearing CM622-2024 (Annexure P -5) in a time bound manner. Petitioner Sat b eer Kaur is present in person. She submits t h at she is not in a position to effectively prosecute t he present revision petition without legal assista n ce and, therefore, requests that a Legal Aid Coun s el be appointed to represent her in the present ma t ter. She further submits that
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 2
Ms. Manvi Verma, A dvocate, who is present in Court and is alrea dy appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for her in t wo other matters, may be appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on her behalf in the present case also.
The request m a de by the petitioner appears to be genuine and re a sonable. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, who is pr e sent in Court, submits that she has no objection t o her appointment as Legal Aid Counsel in the p resent matter. Accordingly, Ms. Manvi Verma, A d vocate, is hereby appointed as Legal Aid Couns e l for the petitioner in the present case.
The Secretary , District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) con c erned is directed to process the appointment of the aforesaid counsel and ensure that the admi s sible fee and other charges, as per the applicab l e Legal Services Authority Rules and Schedule of Fees, are paid to the appointed Legal Aid C ounsel for the work done in the present case.
At this stage, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several errors apparent in the dra ft ing of the present revision petition, which req u ire correction and proper incorporation of n e cessary particulars. She, therefore, prays that the present revision petition may be permitted to b e withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition wi t h better particulars .
Permitted to do so.
Consequently, the present civil revision petition is dismissed a s withdrawn , with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with better
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 3
particulars, if so adv i sed and in accordance with law .
Pending applic a tion(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.” At the outset, it is apposite t o notice that vide order dated 09.03.20 2 6, this Court had permitted the petitioner, on her own request m ade through learned Legal A i d Counsel, to withdraw the civil revi s ion petition with liberty to fil e a fresh petition with better particula r s. The said liberty was granted after recording the statement of learn e d counsel that there were se v eral errors apparent in the drafting o f the petition, which necessitate d withdrawal and refiling.
Having heard the review-ap p licant, appearing in person, and per u sed the record, this Court fi n ds that the present review applicati o n is wholly misconceived and not maintainable.
It is a settled proposition of l aw that the power of review is extrem e ly limited in scope and can be e xercised only in cases where there is a n error apparent on the face o f the record, or for any other sufficien t reason analogous thereto. A review proceeding cannot be treated a s an appeal in disguise, nor can i t be invoked for re-agitating issues or s eeking a rehearing on merits.
In the present case, the o rder dated 09.03.2026 was passed o n the specific request made on b e half of the petitioner herself, seeking p ermission to withdraw the petit i on with liberty to file afresh. The Cou r t merely acceded to the said request and granted liberty accordin g ly. Once the petitioner has co n sciously opted to withdraw the petiti o n with such liberty, she canno t be permitted to turn around
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RA-CR-38-2026 in CR-2197-2026 4
and seek review of the very order which was passed at her own instance.
No ground has been made o ut to show that there is any error app a rent on the face of the record i n the order dated 09.03.2026. There is neither any patent illegality n or any jurisdictional error warranti n g interference in exercise of re v iew jurisdiction. The present applicati o n, in effect, seeks to recall o r undo a voluntary act of withdrawal, which is impermissible in la w .
It is also pertinent to obs e rve that the petitioner has already b een granted liberty to file a fresh petition with better particula r s, if so advised, and in accord a nce with law. Therefore, an efficacio u s remedy already stands availa b le to the petitioner, and the present r e view application appears to be an attempt to circumvent the said cour s e.
In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the
present r e view application.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed .
Pending application(s), if a n y, shall also stand disposed of.
April 02, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.02 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review can be sought of an order permitting withdrawal of a revision petition made at the petitioner's own request.
Satbeer Kaur
Des Raj and others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
