Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones Delay but Dismisses Review Petition; Reiterates Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction

Case Name: Prem Singh and Others v. Karam Singh (Since Deceased) Through LRs and Others
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CM-4591-C-2020 in RA-RS-28-2020 in RSA-839-1987
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court condoned the delay of 324 days in filing the review petition by adopting a liberal approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, upon examining the review petition on merits, the Court dismissed the same, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record, no discovery of new and material evidence, and no other ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction was made out. The Court reiterated that a review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or as a means to re-argue issues already decided.

Summary: The applicants filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 324 days in filing a review petition against a judgment passed in a Regular Second Appeal. The explanation offered was that the applicants came to know about the judgment belatedly and thereafter acted with due diligence. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the explanation was concocted and that the applicants were fully aware of the judgment from the outset.

The Court, while noting inconsistencies in the explanation, held that refusal to condone the delay would result in non-adjudication of the review petition and cause prejudice. Emphasising that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits unless mala fides or deliberate inaction is evident, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.

Thereafter, the Court considered the review petition itself, which sought reconsideration of the earlier judgment on grounds including alleged lack of authority of counsel, procedural irregularities, and alleged legal and factual errors in the judgment under review. The Court observed that the impugned judgment was a reasoned and speaking order passed after full consideration of the record and rival submissions.

It was held that review jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only to correct patent and self-evident errors, clerical mistakes, or where new and material evidence, despite due diligence, could not have been produced earlier. The grounds raised by the applicants were found to be an attempt to re-open concluded issues, re-appreciate evidence, and re-argue the appeal, which is impermissible in review proceedings.

The Court further held that issues relating to listing of the case, change of counsel, or internal arrangements between litigants and advocates do not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record. No procedural travesty or manifest illegality was demonstrated.

Decision: The application for condonation of delay was allowed. However, the review petition was dismissed on merits. The Court held that no ground was made out for exercise of review jurisdiction and that the review petition amounted to an impermissible attempt to seek rehearing of issues already finally decided.