Gondu Venkata Rao v. Union Of India And ANR
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17205/2024 GONDU VENKATA RAO .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, SPC with Mr. Prahlad, Mr. Amit and Mr.
Atul, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
O R D E R
% 28.02.2025 CM APPL. 11909/2025 1.
The present application has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 15 days in filing the review petition. 2.
In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 15 days in filing the review petition is condoned. 3.
The application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 104/2025 4.
The present Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟), has been filed by the petitioner seeking a review of the Judgment The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
dated 13.12.2024 passed by this Court, dismissing the writ petition. 5.
By this Review Petition, the petitioner is, in fact, seeking a rehearing of the petition, which does not fall within the scope of the above provisions. An appeal in form of a Review Petition cannot be filed. The Supreme Court, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, laid down the limits of the Review Jurisdiction, as under: - "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
6.
The present Review Petition falls foul of the above parameters. 7.
Accordingly, we find no merits in the present Review Petition and the interim application.
8.
The same is, accordingly dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J FEBRUARY 28, 2025/ss/sk/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.