# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Rajit Singh & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 876 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-07-02 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.138 of 2021 - **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar, Mrs. Saroj Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-rajit-singh-anr-47410 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Practice & Procedure - Review Application - The Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of matter is impermissible in the garb of review. In the present case, the petitioner failed to point out any error in the judgment under challenge. (Para 11) Review Application Rejected. (E-10) List of Cases cited: ## Text 876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES dated 02.07.2021 so that somehow the petitioners who are lawfully elected members of Zila Panchayat, may not cast their votes for the election of President, Zila Panchayat, Firozabad. A review filed for such purpose is not maintainable and deserves rejection with exemplary cost. 13. For all the reasons afore-stated, we are of the view that the applicants/ State-respondents have filed a frivolous review application, which deserves to be dismissed with costs. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the review application is dismissed with costs. ---------- (2021)09ILR A876 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVILL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J. Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.138 of 2021 State Of U.P. & Ors. ....Applicants Versus Rajit Singh & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicants: C.S.C. Counsel for the Respondents: A. Practice & Procedure - Review Application - The Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of matter is impermissible in the garb of review. In the present case, the petitioner failed to point out any error in the judgment under challenge. (Para 11) Review Application Rejected. (E-10) List of Cases cited: 1. Rajendra Kumar Vs Rambai AIR 2003 SC 2095 (followed) 2. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs St.of Guj. (2004) 5 SCC 353 (followed) 3. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1372 (followed) 4. Parsion Devi & ors. Vs Sumitri Devi & ors. 1997 (8) SCC 715 (followed) 5. Lily Thomad Vs U.O.I. AIR 200 SC 1650 (followed) 6. Inderchand Jain Vs Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665 (followed) (Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. & Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Application No.98887 of 2021) 1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the review application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to pandemic of Covid-19 (Corona virus) all over the country, resulting into lockdown and closure of High Court, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. 3. It is next submitted that the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 has also extended the limitation considering the spread of Covid-19 (Corona Virus). 4. Considering the circumstances of Covid-19 (Corona Virus) as well as order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 9 All State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh & Anr. 877 2020, the delay in filing the review application is condoned. 1. This application seeks review of judgment dated 27.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.5554 (S/B) of 2020 (State of U. P. Vs. Rajit Singh and another) whereby writ petition has been dismissed by Division Bench of this court. 2. Notices to respondent nos. 1 and 2 are dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing the case could not point out any error in the impugned judgment which is apparent on the face of record, rather it is admitted case of the State, as has been rightly considered by learned Tribunal, that the admission made by the State in para 5 of the reply in the application dated 13.6.2014, which was filed before the enquiry officer, has come to the conclusion that the doctrine of equality will be applicable in the case of the petitioners because regarding the same incident several other engineers and officers were not found guilty and have been exonerated of the charges during the course of enquiry and only the petitioner has been found guilty. Thus, on the ground of equal treatment, his claim petition was allowed. The writ petition filed before the High Court has been dismissed upholding the judgment and order passed by learned tribunal as it is admitted case of the State that all the other officers who are involved in respect of the same incident have been exonerated and only the respondent has been found guilty thus the order of the learned tribunal quashing the punishment order was found to be just and proper. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner could not show any error apparent on the face of record. 5. The law is settled that review can be entertained against the order only on two grounds:- (a) The impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure to justice. 6. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and said: "The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgement/order cannot be disturbed.". 7. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 5 SCC 353, Hon'ble Apex while referring its earlier judgements on the ground has observed that review application are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as advice for ventilating remorseless, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well. 8. Review is also by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies 878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES only for patent error (vide Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1372). 9. In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others 1997 (8) SCC 715 the Apex court held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. 10. Thus, Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Court said that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment under challenge, hence, dismissed. ---------- (2021)09ILR A878 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Review Petition No. 264 of 2003 Chandra Bhan Major & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Aditiya Prakash ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Mohd. Abid Ali, Avadhesh Kumar, Om Prakash Pandey, Onkar Nath Tiwari, R.N. Gupta Counsel for the Respondent: R.S. Pandey, Chandra Bhooshan, R.S. Pandey A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - The Court find that the admission of second appeal without framing any substantial question of law, neither at the time or admission o at any time thereafter, is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment dated 14.08.2003 which the High Court is bound to correct it. (Para 10) Review Petition Allowed. (E-10) List of Cases cited: 1. Nazir Mohammad Vs J. Kamala & ors. 2020 (38) LCD 1969 (SC) (followed) 2. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722 (followed) 3. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 (followed) 4. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) 20 SCC 753 (followed) 5. S. Nagraj Vs St.of Karn. (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595 (followed) 6. M.M. Thomas Vs St. of Kerala & anr. (2000) 1 SCC 666 (followed) 7. F.C.I. & anr.. Vs M/s Seil Ltd. & ors. (2008) 3 SCC 440 (followed) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) 1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhooshan, learned counsel for opposite parties/respondents.