REVIEW PETITION 331 of 2019
Parties
- Also heard on the review application. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that there is no error in the judgment but case-law of State of Punjab (PETITIONER)
Cites (0 resolved of 4 detected)
4 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
WPSS No.331 of 2019
Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate for the
review applicants/petitioners.
None present for the respondent.
Urgency application IA No.6114 of 2020 is allowed.
Instant review application MCC No.216 of 2020 has been filed by the applicants Jogendra Singh and Shahansha seeking review of judgment dated 14.10.2019 passed by this Court.
There is delay of 120 days in filing the review application wherefor delay condonation application CLMA No.5580 of 2020 has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application.
Cause shown is sufficient. Delay is therefore condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed.
Also heard on the review application. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that there is no error in the judgment but case-law of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 SCC (1) 148 has been left to be considered by the Court in the case of the applicants.
The jurisdiction of review is within the parameters of the provisions contained under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In order to entertain review application, the first and foremost thing is that there must be an error or mistake apparent on the face of record. review lies only for patent error. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to be reheard on merit. While hearing the review application, the review court should not enter into and decide the controversy de novo as trial or as an appellate authority. If an error in judgment is apparent on the face of record, the court
may review the judgment, but if the review court is required to discuss the pleading and the evidence de novo, it cannot be subject matter of the review petition and in such situation, the judgment, sought to be reviewed, can only be challenged before the appellate court. Law on this subject is no more res integra and has been discussed in catena of judgments. Reference may be made to Sasi (D) Through Lrs. Petitioner (s) Versus Aravindakshan Nair and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 692 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224.
In the instant case, applicants’ counsel has admitted that there is no error in the judgment sought to be review. Even otherwise, I have perused the impugned judgment and on perusal of the same, I do not find any illegality in the judgment. There is no merit in the review application. Same is hereby dismissed.
Rajni
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
04.08.2020