Jagdev Singh Since Deceased through Lrs and Others Vs Munshi and Others

The review-applicant/respon d ent-plaintiff No. 3 has filed the present re v iew application under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w S.151 CP C seeking review of the judgmen t /order dated16.02.2026, passed by this Co u rt in CM-14427-C-2025, CM- 1 775-C-2026 in/and RSA-26021993 whe r eby the main appeal was dispo s ed of in terms of compromise dated 13.0 5 .2016 (Annexure C-1) arrived a t between the parties.

¶13

Briefly stated, the appellant/ d efendants are in second appeal against th e judgment of reversal dated 6.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, whereb y the Civil appeal filed by the plaintiff/re s pondents No. 1 to 6 herein, was allowed setting aside the judgment a nd decree dated 06.08.1988 pa s sed by the learned trial Court; and suit f or mandatory injunction file d by the plaintiffs was partly decreed.

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

RA-RS-22-2026 (O&M) IN RSA-2602-1993 -2-

¶16

Learned counsel for the rev i ew-applicant submits that the order date d 16.02.2026 deserves to be revi e wed on account of the fact that the LRs of appellant/defendants No. 1 t o 3 have misled the Court by making false statement regarding compro m ise as well as qua the death of present ap p licant/respondent No. 3/plaint i ff No. 3. It is submitted that notice of t h e application bearing No. C M -14427-C-2025 for disposal of the main a p peal on the basis of comprom i se dated 13.05.2016 was never issued to the review-applicant. It is c ontended that the LR’S of responden t s No. 1, 4 and 5/plaintiffs No. 1, 4 and 5 have wrongly stated that the p r esent review applicant and pla i ntiff No. 6 (respondent No. 6 herein) are not interested in pursuing the p r esent case. It is argued that the main appe a l was disposed of on the basis of aforesaid mis-representation by the appellants and respondents No. 1, 2 , 4 and 5,in the absence of the review applicant. It is accordingly pr a yed that the present review applicatio n may be allowed.

¶17

No other argument is made o n behalf of the review applicant. 5. I have heard ld. counsel and p e rused the case file in detail. 6. Perusal of the order under re v iew reveals that the same has been pass e d by this Court in the presence of both the parties, and on the basis of co m promise dated 13.05.2016 (A n nexure C-1) arrived at between the parties.

¶18

A further perusal of the C ompromise dated 13.5.2016 (Annexure C-1) shows that the review a p plicant namely Khan @ Khan Bahadur i s a very much a party to the sai d compromise. Further, perusal of the v e rnacular of the said comp r omise (at page 12 of the

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶20

RA-RS-22-2026 (O&M) IN RSA-2602-1993 -3-

¶21

CM-1442 7 - C-2025), shows that the sa m e bears the signature of the review ap p licant as well. Moreover, it i s not the case of the review applicant t h at he is not a party to the sai d compromise. Nothing to this effect has e ven been stated in the present r e view application.

¶22

The arguments made by the l e arned counsel for their review applicant, o r even the grounds averred in t h e review application constitute no ground to review the order dated 16.2.2 0 26. It is established position in law that a review application is not mean t to permit the review-applicant to re-argu e the entire case and raise the po i nts that could have been raised during the initial hearing. The order unde r review dated 16.02.2026 was passed in t h e presence of learned counsel f or the parties. An order passed by this Co u rt can be reviewed if there is m anifest error on the face of the record me a ning thereby that there is a cl e ar and obvious mistake in the judgment. T he Review Application is not m eant to re-agitate arguments or pleadings t hat were omitted during the h earing of the main matter. As such, I fin d no such error in the order dat e d 16.02.2026. Rather, as noted above, no cogent ground is made out by the review applicant to justify review of t h e order dated 16.2.2026. 9. Reliance is also placed on a r ecent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” SLP(C)No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review ju r isdiction have been laid dow n in Para 15, which reads as follows:

¶23

“15. It is axiomatic that t h e right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly c o nferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a s tatute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred bylaw on the

¶24

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶25

RA-RS-22-2026 (O&M) IN RSA-2602-1993

¶26

-4-

¶27

authority or the Court. Secti o n 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 o f CPC deal with the power of r eview of the courts. The power of review is different from ap p ellate power and is subject to the following limitations to m aintain the finality of judicial decisions:

¶28

15.1 The review proceeding s are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confi n ed to the scope and ambit o f Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

¶29

15.2 Review is not to be c o nfused with appellate powers, which may enable an appella t e court to correct all manner o f errors committed by the subo r dinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisd i ction under Order 47 Rule1 o f CPC, it is not permissible f o r an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited pu r pose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

¶30

15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substi t ute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits sp e cified in the statute governing the exercise of power.

¶31

15.5 The review court does n ot sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or prono u nced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to p revent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpa b le errors.”