Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Deep Malhotra and Ors. Vs. U.P. Singh and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (28 May 2019)

Purpose of a review application is limited and it cannot be used as a tool to re-argue what has already been decided

MANU/DE/1821/2019

Civil

The present Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking review of the order passed in Contempt Case. The Respondent/DDA submitted that, in view of order dated 24th April, 2019 passed by Commissioner (LD) DDA, the present contempt petition has been rightly disposed of by this Court on 3rd May, 2019 and the present review petition is an abuse of the process of law and sought dismissal of the same.

The scope of a review petition lies in a narrow compass. Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) lays down the parameters of exercising review jurisdiction. The said provision makes it abundantly clear that, the power of a review can be invoked on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the judgment was passed or on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

In a recent decision in the case of Sasi (D) Through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and Others, the Supreme Court has reiterated that "the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reason."

In the case at hand, under the garb of a review application, the Petitioner is actually seeking a re-hearing of the contempt petition that was dismissed on merits on 3rd May, 2019, which is impermissible. The purpose of a review application is fairly limited and it cannot be used as a tool to re-argue what has already been decided. None of the circumstances as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC have arisen, nor do the grounds raised in the review petition entitle the Petitioner for a review. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he is at the liberty to seek appropriate legal recourse. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

Relevant : Sasi (D) Through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and Others, reported as MANU/SC/0265/2017

Tags : REVIEW JURISDICTION   POWER   INVOCATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved