Dismissed¶¶18

Central Board of Trustee v. Usha Fabs and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2026RA-CW/195/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; RA-CW-195 of 2021 in CWP-8443-2020; Central Board of Trustee v. Usha Fabs and another; review of judgment dated 22.6.2020 dismissing CWP No. 8443 of 2020; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; Section 151 CPC; scope of review jurisdiction; review not an appeal in disguise; error apparent on the face of the record; discovery of new and important matter; rehearing and re-appreciation of facts impermissible in review; review cannot substitute appeal; single Judge Kirti Singh; decided 16.7.2026; dismissed; advocate Sandeep Goyal.

What did the court decide?

The jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is a limited one; a review is not an appeal in disguise. ¶¶15

Central Board of Trustee Vs Usha Fabs and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RA-CW-195 of 2021 in -1CWP-8443-2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(233) RA-CW-195 of 2021 IN CWP-8443-2020 Date of Decision: 16.7.2026

¶4

Central Board of Trustee

¶5

......Applicant-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Usha Fabs and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶11

¶12

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 22.6.2020, whereby the main case i.e. CWP No. 8443 of 2020 has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is a limited one. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time of hearing, or any other analogous sufficient reason. The applicant has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 22.6.2020. The applicant, in substance, seeks a rehearing of the matter on facts by GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:18 inviting this Court to re-appreciate the material and revisit the conclusions I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

RA-CW-195 of 2021 in -2CWP-8443-2020

¶17

already arrived at. Such an exercise is impermissible in review jurisdiction, which cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal.

¶18

Accordingly, finding no ground whatsoever for exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the present review application is hereby dismissed.

¶19

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶20

July 16^th , 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶21

GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.17 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Central Board of Trustee v. Usha Fabs and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Board of Trustee v. Usha Fabs and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haryana State Vs Chandi Ram and Anr.

Naveen Kumaqr Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Wazir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Others

Raghunath Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Kumar Vs Union of India and Others