State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors vs Anant Ram & Ors

Sandeep Sharma, J

CMP(M) No.1817 of 2023

For the reasons set out in the application, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. The petition be registered.

Review Petition No.1 of 2024.

By way of present Review Petition, prayer has been made by the review petitioners to review and recall the judgment dated 15.06.2018, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.1660 of 2020, titled as Anant Ram and others versus State of H.P.and others, whereby this Court disposed of the petition as having rendered infructuous.

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

The grounds raised are nothing, but reiteration of the grounds urged in petition. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re­appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed 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 AndhraPradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held:“

.....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 therecord would be made out.....”

(P.1377)35.

This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.

Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Vermavs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs.Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.