National Green Tribunal
Babulal Sahu vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 2026
Item No.02 (In-Chamber)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Review Application No.02/2026(CZ)
In
Original Application No.93/2023(CZ)
Municipal Corporation Ajmer Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 30.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
1. This is an application to review the order dated 4/11/2025, passed in O.A. No. 93 of 2023 (CZ) with the prayer to reconsider the order and to recall it. The issue raised in this application was compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rule, 2016 and the Liquid Management Rules and to ensure that no untreated water is discharged in the water bodies or open land and no garbage should be thrown into the open area or the water bodies and there must be proper provisions of disposal of these items.
2. The issues of solid as well as liquid waste management are being monitored by this Tribunal as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., with regard to solid waste management and order dated 22.02.2017 in W.P. No. 375/2012, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326, Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India, with regard to liquid waste management. Other related issues include pollution of 351 river stretches, 122 non-attainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 1 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
polluted industrial clusters, illegal sand mining etc. have also been dealt with earlier but currently proceedings are confined to two issues of solid waste and sewage management. Similarly, the issue of liquid waste management, vide judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha (2017) 5 SCC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed deadline for setting up of treatment plants within three years which was to be monitored by this Tribunal. During the course of hearing in various matters of all the States and District Headquarters, it was found by various orders that large scale non-compliance of environmental norms was continuing which was reportedly resulting in deaths and diseases and irreversible damage to the environment. Directions for remedial action were issued which include constitution of a four member special task force in every district having - one each nominated by District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, State Pollution Control Boards and District Legal Services Authority (DSLAs) for awareness about SWM Rules, 2016 by involving educational, religious and social organizations including local Eco-clubs. Involvement of DLSAs was subject to the approval of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) which is the apex body under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It was observed that Information, Education and Communication (IEC) programmes can go a long way for protection of the environment. Such program can be successful if network of Legal Services Authorities and Educational Institutions at every level is involved.
3. Rule 15 of the SWM Rules lays down the duties and responsibilities of local authorities, which are as follows:-
2
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
"15. Duties and responsibilities of local authorities and village Panchayats of census towns and urban agglomerations The local authorities and Panchayats shall: ................
(b) arrange for door to door collection of segregated solid waste from all households including slums and informal settlements, commercial, institutional and other non residential premises.
From multi-storage buildings, large commercial complexes, malls, housing complexes, etc., this may be collected from the entry gate or any other designated location;
.................
g) direct waste generators not to litter Le throw or dispose of any waste such as paper, water bottles, liquor bottles, soft drink canes, tetra packs, fruit peel, wrappers, etc., or burn or bury waste on streets, open public spaces, drains, waste bodies and to segregate the waste at source as prescribed under these rules and hand over the segregated waste to authorised the waste pickers or waste collectors authorised by the local body; ................
(j) ensure safe storage and transportation of the domestic hazardous waste to the hazardous waste disposal facility or as may be directed by the State Pollution Control Board or the Pollution Control Committee;
....................
(p) collect horticulture, parks and garden waste separately and process in the parks and gardens, as far as possible;
(q) transport segregated bio-degradable waste to the processing facilities like compost plant, bio-methanation plant or any such facility. Preference shall be given for on site processing of such 3 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
waste; (r) transport non-bio-degradable waste to the respective processing facility or material recovery facilities or secondary storage facility;
4. Rules 11 of the SWM Rules imposes a duty on the Secretary-inCharge, Urban Development Department, to ensure wholesome implementation of the SWM Rules. The relevant clauses are listed below:-
"11. Duties of Secretary-in-Charge, Urban Development in the States and Union Territories ..............
(d) ensure implementation of provisions of these rules by all local authorities;
(e) direct the town planning department of the State to ensure that master plan of every city in the State or Union territory provisions for setting up of solid waste processing and disposal facilities except for the cities who are members of common waste processing facility or regional sanitary landfill for a group of cities; and
(f) ensure identification and allocation of suitable land to the local bodies within one year for setting up of processing and disposal facilities for solid wastes and incorporate them in the master plans (land use plan) of the State or as the case may be, cities through metropolitan and district planning committees or town and country planning department;
(g) direct the town planning department of the State and local bodies to ensure that a separate space for segregation, storage, decentralised processing of solid waste is demarcated in the development plan for group housing or commercial, institutional or any other non-residential complex exceeding 200 dwelling or having a plot area exceeding 5,000 square meters;"4
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
5. Under Rule 16, the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee has a duty to ensure enforcement of SWM Rules by local authorities and review its implementation:-
16. Duties of State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee (1)
(a) enforce these rules in their State through local bodies in their respective jurisdiction and review implementation of these rules at least twice a year in close coordination with concerned Directorate of Municipal Administration or Secretary-in-charge of State Urban Development Department;
(b) monitor environmental standards and adherence to conditions as specified under the Schedule I and Schedule II or waste processing and disposal sites;"
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand (1980)4 SCC 162 and B. L. Wadhera v. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 594 laid down that a clean environment is a fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 and it is for the local bodies as well as the State to ensure that public health is preserved by taking all possible steps. For doing so, financial inability cannot be pleaded
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 elevated the Right to a clean and healthy environment to the status of a fundamental human right under Article 21. The relevant portion of the judgment is produced below:-
5
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
"57. Environmental concerns arising in this Court under Article 32 or under Article 136 or under Article 226 in the High Courts are, in our view, of equal importance as human rights concerns. In fact, both are to be traced to Article 21 which deals with the fundamental right to life and liberty. While environmental aspects concern "life", human rights aspects concern "liberty". In our view, in the context of emerging jurisprudence relating to environmental matters, as is the case in matters relating to human rights, it is the duty of this Court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. With a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment nor to the ecology and, at the same time, ensuring sustainable development, this Court in our view, can refer scientific and technical aspects for investigation and opinion to expert bodies such as the appellate authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries 22-9-87), (1987) had established that the right to a healthy and clean environment is integral to the Right to Life. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is reproduced below:-
"4. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale.
Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the manmade, 6 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights even the right to life itself......."
9. Further, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000) 6 SCC 213 the Apex Court had recognized that Article 48- A and Article 51-A(g) should be construed within the ambit of Article 21. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is provided below:-
"8. Apart from the above statutes and the rules made thereunder, Article 48-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. One of the fundamental duties of every citizen as set out in Article 51-A(g) is to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution."
10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577, considered the enjoyment of live and attainment of human dignity encompassing the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological equilibrium, devoid of air and water pollution, and sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed. Relevant excerpts from the aforementioned judgment is as follows:- 7
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
"7. Article 48-A in Part IV (Directive Principles) brought by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, enjoins that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country". Article 47 further imposes the duty on the State to improve public health as its primary duty. Article 51-A(g) imposes "a fundamental duty" on every citizen of India to "protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures". The word 'environment' is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance". It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygienic environment. The State, in particular has duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic erwironment. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as 8 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man- made and the natural environment."
11. In OA No.606/2018 vide order dated 28.02.2020 dealing the matter of the solid waste and liquid waste, this Tribunal in the above noted case directed the States as follows:-
"a. In view of the fact that most of the statutory timelines have expired and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal to comply with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 remain unexecuted, interim compensation scale is hereby laid down for continued failure after 31.03.2020. The compliance of the Rules requires taking of several steps mentioned in Rule 22 from Serial No. 1 to 10 (mentioned in para 12 above). Any such continued failure will result in liability of every Local Body to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh per month per other Local Body from 01.04.2020 till compliance. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal. Final compensation may be assessed and recovered by the State PCBs/PCCs in the light of Para 33 above within six months from today. CPCB may prepare a template and issue an appropriate direction to the State PCBs/PCCs for 9 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
undertaking such an assessment in the light thereof within one month.
b. Legacy waste remediation was to 'commence' from 01.11.2019 in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2019 in O.A. No. 519/2019 para 28 even though statutory timeline for 'completing' the said step is till 07.04.2021 (as per serial no. 11 in Rule 22), which direction remains unexecuted at most of the places and delay in clearing legacy waste is causing huge damage to environment in monetary terms as noted in para 33 above, pending assessment and recovery of such damage by the concerned State PCB within four months from today, continued failure of every Local Body on the subject of commencing the work of legacy waste sites remediation from 01.04.2020 till compliance will result in liability to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal. Final compensation may be assessed and recovered by the State PCBs/PCCs in the light of Para 33 above within six months from today.
c. Further, with regard to thematic areas listed above in para 20, steps be ensured by the Chief Secretaries in terms of directions of this Tribunal especially w.r.t. plastic waste, bio-medical waste, construction and demolition waste which are linked with solid waste treatment and disposal. Action may also be ensured by the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs with respect to remaining thematic areas viz. hazardous waste, e waste, polluted industrial clusters, reuse of treated water, performance of CETPS/ETPS, 10 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
groundwater extraction, groundwater recharge, restoration of water bodies, noise pollution and illegal sand mining. d. The compensation regime already laid down for failure of the Local Bodies and/or Department of Irrigation and Public Health/In- charge Department to take action for treatment of sewage in terms of observations in Para 36 above will result in liability to pay compensation as already noted above which are reproduced for ready reference:
i. Interim measures for phytoremediation/bioremediation etc. in respect of 100% sewage to reduce the pollution load on recipient water bodies 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and Ο.Α. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 06.12.2019 01.04.2020.
ii. Commencement of setting up of STPs 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in Ο.Α. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020. iii. Commissioning of STPS 31.03.2021.
Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
e. Compensation in above terms may be deposited with the CPCB for being spent on restoration of environment which may be ensured by the Chief Secretaries' of the States/UTs.
f. An Environment Monitoring Cell' may be set up in the office of Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs within one month from today, if not already done for coordination and compliance of above directions which will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs.
g. in Compliance reports respect of significant environmental issues may be furnished in terms of order dated 07.01.2020 quarterly with a copy to CPCB."
11 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
12. There appears to be need for change at policy and execution level after study of success stories elsewhere and in the light of several orders of the Tribunal dealing with the issue in respect of other States, particularly relating to solid waste management at Indore. There has to be a dedicated Cell in the office of the Chief Secretary manned by senior level officers to coordinate such serious issues to regularly monitor progress of execution of projects on time and maintaining inter-departmental co- ordination. It is necessary to ensure that wet solid waste (biodegradable) is kept separate from dry waste(nonbiodegradable and recyclable) at all source generating levels, collection, transportation or handling which can inter alia be resource for compost or biogas generation. Dry waste can be separately handled by setting up Material Recovery Facility with sorting mechanism for further recycling or reuse. It is necessary that District Headquarters and Semi Urban and Rural Areas after segregation of waste and the waste which is recyclable, need to be properly coordinated for utilization like in cement kilns and by the authorized scrap dealers/recyclers.
13. We have suggested change in approach in realizing that remedial action cannot wait for indefinite period nor loose ended time lines without accountability can be a solution. Responsibility of the State is to have comprehensive time bound plan with tied up resources to control pollution which is its absolute liability. If there is deficit in budgetary allocations, it is for the State alone to have suitable planning by reducing cost or augmenting resources. People must be involved in the problem by appropriate awareness and strategies to encourage public participation and contribution. At the cost of repetition, health issues cannot be deferred to long future. Long future dates breach of which 12 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
has taken place frequently in the past without accountability is not a convincing solution. It is poor substitute for compliance within laid down timelines for long past. This approach may project lack of concern or not realizing the grim ground situation crying for emergent remedial measures on priority. There is no time for leisure, reflected in timelines proposed for bridging the acknowledged gaps.
14. It is the mindset and determination to act in a mission mode which can produce results. Thus, it may be necessary to brain storm with available experts and other stake holders in the State at different levels, evolve models for both solid and sewage management which can be fast replicated, initiate special campaigns with community/media involvement in the larger interest of protecting environment and public health with determination for prompt action. Such brain storming sessions may enable capacity enhancement of the regulators and the processors. Campaigns and community involvement may result in reducing the financial and administrative load on the administration. It would be better to replicate the efforts made in maintaining cleanliness including enhancing public contribution and utilizing for sewage and solid waste management. Compliance of environmental norms on the subject of waste management has to be on high on priority. It is high time that the State realizes its duty to law and to citizens and adopts further monitoring at its own level.
15. In the light of above observations, it appears that there is need for paradigm shift in handling of the situation. The nagging problem of waste management stares the administration in the face and remains unresolved to the detriment of environment and public health. First 13 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
change required is to set up a centralized single window mechanism for planning, capacity building and monitoring of waste management at the State level. Of course, local authorities have to do their duty and stocktaking at the district levels may continue but subject to supervision and control of such mechanism. It should be headed by an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary with representation from concerned departments - Urban Development, Rural Development, Environment and Forest, Agriculture, Water Resources, Fisheries and Industries. The mechanism should be working on fulltime basis. Its functions should include preparing a comprehensive blue print, periodic review of progress in bridging the gaps in sewage and solid waste management and establishing, continuous interaction with the stakeholders, including experts and institutions, concerned departments, community members and all other stakeholders. There must be a continuous training programme for those involved in execution of waste management projects. It should be responsible for selecting service providers and simplifying procedures for fixing terms of engagement. Best practices are to be evolved and followed. The State may interact with the municipal agencies like Indore Municipal Corporation, Punjab Pollution Control Board and Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to have more feedback and teams may undertake field visits. Mechanism be considered to engage service providers by due diligent process who may execute work relating to solid and sewage management simultaneously throughout the State - all districts, cities and towns. Selection of service providers may be done taking into account of his past performance and number of projects and capacity to handle successfully. As applicable, 14 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
consultancy may be sought initially and thereafter execution done with departmental efforts under due supervision.
16. The applicant has not raised any new evidence to reconsider it. So far as the damage to the environment is concerned, it is within the domain of the state PCB and the applicant has an appropriate remedy by filing the appeal against the order before the appropriate forum under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981.
17. Some mistake or error, if made ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of record and if a party files an application on the ground of "some other sufficient reason" it has to satisfy that the said sufficient reason is analogous to the other conditions mentioned in the said rule i.e. discovery of new and important matter of evidence which it could not discover with due diligence or it was not within his knowledge and, thus, could not produce at the initial stage. Apparent error on the face of record has been explained to include failure to apply the law of limitation to the facts found by the Court or failure to consider a particular provision of a statute or a part thereof or a statutory provision has been applied though it was not in operation. Review is permissible if there is an error of procedure apparent on the face of the record e.g. the judgment is delivered without notice to the parties, or judgment does not effectively deal with or determine any important issue in the case though argued by the parties. There may be merely a smoke-line demarcating an error simpliciter from the error apparent on the face of record. But there cannot be a ground for entertaining the review in the former case.
15 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
19. The expression any other sufficient reason' contained in Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure means "sufficient reason" which is analogous to those specified immediately to it in the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki & Ors, AIR 1922 PC 112, it was held by the Privy Council that analogy must be discovered between two grounds specified therein namely; (2) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; and (ii) error apparent on the face of record, before entertaining the review on any other sufficient ground. The same view has been reiterated in Debi Prasad & Ors Vs. Khelawan & Ors, AIR 1957 All. 67; and Mohammad Hasan Khan Vs. Ahmad Hafis Ahmad Ali Khan & Anr., AIR 1957 Nag. 97.
20. In S. Nagraj & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the scope of review observing as under:-
"Review literally and even judicially means re examination or Reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice...... The expression, for any other sufficient reason' in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under mis-apprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power."
The Court further held that the purpose of review is rectification of an order which stems from the fundamental principle that the justice is above all and it is exercised only to correct the error which has occurred by some accident without any blame. While deciding the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon a large number 16 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
of judgments including in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury Vs. Sukhraj Rai & Ors., AIR 1941 FC 1; and Rajunder Narain Rae Vs. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 MOO PC 117. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 578.
21. A Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in D. Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh Vs. Beli Ram, AIR 1981 HP 1, considered the scope of review and held that not considering an existing judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be a ground of review and for the same it placed reliance upon the judgments of the Privy Council in Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao Vs. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao, (1900) 27 IA 197 (PC), wherein it was held that the purpose of review, inter alia, is to correct an apparent error which should not have been there when the judgment was given. The Court also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Federal Court in Sir Hari Sankar Pal & Anr. Vs. Anath Nath Mitter & Ors., 1949 FC 106 wherein it was held as under:-
".....the error could not be one apparent on the face of record or even analogous to it. When, however, the Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way, that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of O.47 R.1, Civil Procedure Code."
In Thadikulangara Pylee's Son Pathrose Vs. Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma's son Kuttan & Ors., AIR 1969 Ker 186, the Kerala High Court considered a review application which was filed on the ground of subsequent judgment of the Court and dismissed the same observing as under:-
17
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
"If it is borne in mind that a judicial decision only declares and does not make or change the law, although it might correct previous erroneous views of the law, a review on the basis of subsequent binding authority would not be a review of a decree which, when it was made, was rightly made, on the ground of the happening of a subsequent event."
While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance upon the judgments of the Privy Council in Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma (supra); Chhajju Ram (supra); Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi & Anr. Vs. Parath Nath & Anr, AIR 1934 PC 213; and on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. A.C. Estates Vs. M/s. Serajuddin and Co. & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 935; and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos & Anr. Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526.
22. In Sow. Chandra Kanta & Anr. Vs. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed a review application observing as under:-
"...........thus, making it that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a rehearing. May be ........... a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious subject and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave of error is crept in earlier by judicial fallibility."
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors, AIR 1965 SC 845; Girdhari Lal Gupta Vs. D.N. Mehta & Anr, AIR 1971 SC 2162; M/s. Northern India Cateerers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1047; and Green View Tea & Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat & Anr, (2002) 1 SCC 109.
23. Similarly, in Devaraju Pillai Vs. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160, the Hon'le Apex Court held that if a party is aggrieved of a judgment by a 18 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Court, the proper remedy for such party is to file an appeal against that judgment. A remedy by way of an application for review is entirely misconceived and if a Court entertained the application for review then it has totally exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the review merely because it takes a different view in construction of the document. In Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3737, the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of filing review application observing that review, by no means, is an appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if application has been filed for clarification, modification or review of the judgment and order finally passed for the reason that a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bye-pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a review application. The Court also rejected the argument that review application should be entertained to do justice in the case, observing as under:-
"The words "justice" and "injustice", in our view, are sometimes loosely used and have different meanings to different persons, particularly to those arrayed on opposite sides.... Justice Cardozo said, 'The Web is tangled and obscure, shot through with a multitude of shades and colours, the skeins irregular and broken. Many hues that seems to be simple, are found, when analysed, to be complex and uncertain blend. Justice itself, which we are wont to appeal to as a test as well as an ideal, may mean different things to different minds and at different times. Attempts to objectify its standards or even to describe them, have never wholly succeeded."
24. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for 19 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out."
In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 252, the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the review application which was filed on the ground that the High Court had decided the case placing reliance upon the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the correctness of which had been doubted and the matter had been referred to the Large Bench of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Larger Bench had taken a contrary view. The review petition was dismissed on the grounds, inter alia, that the situation had not been pointed out by the counsel to the Bench when the matter was initially heard.
25. In Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review application is that the order, review of which is sought (a) suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure to justice. (Vide Rajendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Rambhai & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2095; Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 122; and Des Raj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 753). 20 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353, the Apex Court referred to its earlier judgments in P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680; Suthendraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365; and observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well.
26. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in re: Mahamaya Banerjee, AIR 1989 Cal. 106, held that a review under O. 47 R. 1 of the Code is permissible if there had been misconception of fact and/ or law by the counsel, as it will fall within the ambit of expression "sufficient reason" in O. 47 R. 1 of the Code. The Calcutta High Court proceeded with the presumption that in order to do justice, which has been denied to a party owing to patently wrong step taken by its counsel, the Court can exercise its inherent power to come to its rescue and to do justice. With all due respect, the said judgment does not lay down the correct law for the reason that it is settled legal proposition that inherent powers cannot be used by the Court where a Statute provides for a specific remedy.
27. Undoubtedly, inherent powers conferred upon the Court either under Section 151 of the Code or any other analogous provision, can be exercised by the Court to do justice or to further the cause of justice. (Vide Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Seth Hirala, AIR 1962 SC 527; Union of India Vs. Ram Charan, AIR 1964 SC 215; and Vikas 21 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Aggarwal Vs. Anubha, (2002) 4 SCC 468). However, inherent powers cannot be used by a Court where Statute itself provides for a remedy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohal Lal Chopra (supra); Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 993; M/s. Ramchandra & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., Barabanki (U.P.) Vs. Kanhayalal Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1899; Nainsingh Vs. Koonwarjee & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 997; State of West Bengal Vs. Karan Singh Vinayak & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 188).
28. In Bhagwati Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Anr., AIR 1977 All. 163, the Allahabad High Court rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, observing as under:-
"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks t should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."
The Court also considered the judgment of the Federal Court in Mt. Jamna Kuer Vs. Lal Bahadur & Ors., AIR 1950 FC 131, wherein an observation has been made that review is permissible if mistake has been committed by a counsel. The Court did not follow the said judgment, observing that it was a case in which a mistake had crept in the judgment of the High Court owing to an over-sight. Therefore, it was a case wherein review was maintainable on other grounds also and the ratio of that judgment is certainly not that review lies if a counsel commits mistake.
22 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
29. More so, the expression "discovery of new and important matter of evidence" contained in the provisions means, discovery of an evidence or any material which may be adduced in evidence. It cannot take it in its ambit an argument which could have been advanced by the counsel. To sum up, the substance of the said judgments is that the entire concept of writ jurisdiction is founded on equity and fairness and if the Court has committed a mistake, it should be removed entertaining a review application so that the result may not lead to miscarriage of justice, as rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principles that justice is above all. Provisions permit the review even on the mistake of fact or even on ignorance of material fact. The review jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by the Court. The power of review inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. (Vide Shivdeo Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. aribam Pishak Sharma & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1047; Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 248; S. Nagaraj & Ors. (Supra); Parision Devi & Ors Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715; Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 10 SCC 592; Revenue Divisional Officers & Ors Vs. A. Aruna & Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 494; & Rajendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Rambhal & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2095).
We do not dispute the legal propositions settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and that is the ratio of the judgments, referred to by us over and above. The power of review is to be exercised within the definitive limits. More so, a person who seeks equity must do equity and he should approach the Court with clean 23 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
hands, clean mind and with clean objective. The perception of justice varies from person to person, and a litigant who succeeds in Court, claims that justice has been done with him but the litigant who looses, though may not have a case at all, raises grievance that justice has not been done with him.
30. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in procedural too. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in O. 47 R. 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re- open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over- sight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have considered it proper to press the same or could have thought that arguing that point would not serve any purpose. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments made by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even under the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved of a 24 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
judgment, it must approach the Higher Court but entertaining a review to reconsider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction, conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. Justice, as explained above, connotes different meaning to different persons in different contexts, therefore, courts cannot be persuaded to entertain a review application to do justice unless it lies only on the grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions.
31. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Budhia Swain and Others vs. Gopinath Deb Others, (1999) 4 SCC 396 has held that the recall of order only is maintainable when it was obtained by misleading the court. The relevant paras are quoted below:-
"6. What is a power to recall? Inherent power to recall its own order vesting in tribunals or courts was noticed in Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 550. Vide para 23, this Court has held that the courts have inherent power to recall and set aside an order -
i obtained by fraud practised upon the Court, ii. (ii)when the Court is misled by a party, or
(iii) when the Court itself commits which prejudices a party. a mistake In A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531 (vide para
130), this Court has noticed motions to set aside judgments being permitted where
(i) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all and was shown as served or in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had died and the estate was not represented,
(vi)a judgment was obtained by fraud,
(i) a party has had no notice and a decree was made against him and such party approaches the Court for setting aside the decision ex debito justitiae on proof of the fact that there was no service.25
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order earlier made by it if
(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party or
(ii) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for re-opening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.
9. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of A jurisdiction. The former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them and the orders passed therein a nullity. mere error in exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge subject to the law of limitation. In Hira Lal Patni Vs. Sri Kali Nath AIR 1962 SC 199, it was held :-
"The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had been instituted or decree passed, or some such other ground which could have the effect of rendering the court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the suit or over the parties to it."
32. Furthermore, the Court must be held to have the requisite power even under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (old) to issue such 26 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
direction either suo-motu or otherwise which, according to him, would lead to the truth.
33. In our opinion a Tribunal or a Court may recall an order earlier made by it if:
"i. the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, ii. there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, iii. there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party or iv. a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for re-opening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence."
34. The matter of applicability of Review Application has again been discussed by the High Court of Judicator at Bombay in Original Civil Jurisdiction in Review Petition (L) NO. 5868 OF 2021 reportable in 1- RPCDL15868-2021 decided on 04.08.2021 relevant paras are quoted below:-
"4. In 1914, in Hession v Jonesl, Bankes J held that no court has the power to review an order deliberately made after argument and to entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming or reversing it. The decision in Hession a case about a contract for sale of eggs is oddly prescient to the facts of this case, as the extract that follows shows.27
R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
BANKES J. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff, the respondent on an appeal to this Court, to restore the appeal to the list. Such an application may be made either (1.) to restore a case which has merely been struck out and has never been heard and decided because the appellant did not attend; or (2.) to restore a case in which the appellant has appeared and argued his appeal in the absence of the respondent and the Court has heard the appeal and come to a decision. In the first case the application is to restore an appeal which has not been heard; in the second case the application is to set aside a decision after a hearing which in the respondent's view is not satisfactory because he was present. This is an application of the second class, to set aside an order of this Court made by Ridley J. and myself after hearing. The appellant was present and produced a copy of the county court judge's notes and was ready to proceed with his appeal. The respondent was not represented.
The appellant was the defendant in the county court. An action had been brought against him for the price of certain cases of eggs ordered by him for delivery at named station. The a not plaintiff delivered a larger quantity than that ordered. The defendant had refused to take delivery on the grounds (1.) that there was unreasonable delay in forwarding and (2.) that the eggs were not in proper condition. When he was sued in the county court he took the further point under s. 30, sub-s. 2, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, that the plaintiff could not succeed because he had tendered a different quantity from that ordered. The defendant claimed the right to reject on that ground also. The point was taken before the county court judge. The plaintiff contended that the defendant could not rely upon it, because he had not given it as his reason when he first rejected the goods. The county court judge decided the point in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of Ridley J. and myself he was wrong in so deciding. Before deciding the appeal we considered whether there was any evidence that the defendant had waived or abandoned or in any way estopped himself from relying on this defence, and came to the conclusion 28 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
that he had not done so. Accordingly we made an order allowing the appeal; we set aside the judgment of the county court, and ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant in that Court. That order was duly drawn up by the officer of this Court; a copy of the order was obtained by the solicitor for the appellant, the defendant below, and he was thereupon in a position to have the record in the county court altered by striking out the judgment for the plaintiff and entering judgment for the defendant. I do not know whether that was done, but there is no doubt that the order of this Court was drawn up and perfected before any step was taken to set it aside. It is clear therefore that this is an application to review an order deliberately made after argument and to entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming or reversing it. Has the Court jurisdiction to do this? I may say at once that if we have I should not exercise it in the present case, because any application of this sort must be supported by an affidavit of merits. Ihaveread the affidavitinthisapplication and can find nothing which would lead me to alter the opinion I formed on the hearing of the appeal. But it is necessary to consider the jurisdiction of the Court. The application is supported by an affidavit in which the solicitor for the plaintiff says that by an unfortunate mistake he did not instruct any one to appear for the respondent on the appeal. Our jurisdiction therefore is in part a statutory jurisdiction regulated by the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, and partly an inherent jurisdiction which we possess as judges of the High Court. The question is whether either by the rules or by reason of our inherent jurisdiction we have the power to reinstate this appeal.
Then as to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Before the Judicature Acts the Courts of common law had no jurisdiction whatever to set aside an order which had been made. The Court of Chancery did exercise a certain limited power in this direction. All Courts would have power to make a necessary correction if the order as drawn up did not express the intention of the Court; the Court of Chancery, however, went somewhat further than that, and would in a proper case recall any decree or order before it was passed and entered; but 29 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
after it had been drawn up and perfected no Court or judge had any power to interfere with it. That is clear from the judgment of Thesiger L.J. in the case of In re St. Nazaire Co ((1879) 12 Ch D 88J.
(Emphasis added)
6. A power of review is conferred on our civil courts by Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The relevant part of those provisions say:
114. Review.--Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
Order 47 REVIEW
1. Application for review of judgment.--
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or 30 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]
2. [deleted]
3. ...
4. Application where rejected.--
(1) Where it appear to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application.
(2) Application where granted.-- Where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same:
Provided that-- (a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order, a review of which is applied for; and
(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, without strict proof of such allegation.
5. ...
6. ...
7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application.--(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.
(2) ...
(3) ...
8. ...
9. ...
20. Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court. If the written submissions were to be relied on, that ought to have been done during arguments, or, at any rate, while judgment was being dictated in open court or at best shortly after the judgment or order was uploaded. These never-argued written submissions cannot be taken in hindsight."
27. A very similar case came up before the Hon'ble Mr Justice SC Gupte in Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd.2 Several months after he delivered a reasoned judgment, an application for review was made before him suggesting that during the course of hearing he indicated his mind in a certain way and that 31 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
counsel had according trimmed and tailored arguments and not pressed the point or not made it fully. Gupte J said:
12. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos (supra), [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius ((1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR 1954 SC 526)] the controversy concerned a statement made by the judges of the Full Bench of the High Court of Travancore (per majority of two judges) that the defendants' advocate had conceded that the plaintiffs had not left the Church and they were as good members of the Church as anybody else. It was the case of the defendants (the review petitioners) that this statement was said to be inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The argument before the Supreme Court was that the majority decision proceeded on a misconception as to the concession said to have been made by the defendants' advocate. This misconception was sought to be proved through affidavit and other documentary evidence. That was objected to by the Attorney General.
The learned Attorney General's argument was that the affidavit and document could not be said to be part of the "record" within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1. The Supreme Court did not countenance the objection. According to the court, there was no reason to construe the word "record" in any restricted sense. The court observed that when the error complained of was that the court assumed that a concession was made when none had in fact been made or that the court misconceived the terms of that concession or the scope or extent of it, it would not generally appear on record but would have to be brought before the court by way of an affidavit and this could only be done by way of review. Once again, these facts are clearly distinguishable. In our case, the court did not proceed on any concession made by Counsel; the order under review mentions none. If it was Counsel, who was under a misconception as to the position of the court and therefore, chose not to argue a point, that by itself is no ground for review and cannot be brought in by way of an affidavit. In any event, the affidavit in support of review petition does not refer to any such misconception, as noted above. As for what transpired in court, there is, as noticed above, a serious contest between the parties and there is no question of taking a view one way or the other based on a unilateral statement of the review petitioners.
14. The Review Petitioners' case here is neither supported by law or authority of court. If anything, it would set a bizarre precedent, if accepted, that it is open to seek review of a judgment or order, if the court had indicated its mind one way in court whilst reserving the judgment and the judgment came 32 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the other way or that Counsel appearing before the court was under an impression that the case would be decided one way and in reality, it was decided otherwise."
28. Even if that decision can fairly be set to turn on the facts of this case, the general principle that it propounds is not only salutary but is essential. If this practice is to be encouraged -- that a party faced with an adverse order first files an appeal on a ground never taken or argued before the court of first instance
-- then that injects an impermissible level of uncertainty into the whole decision-making process. A Review Petition that follows a disposal of that appeal with liberty to the appellants to file a Review Petition, again on grounds never taken, argued or even pleaded only aggravates the matter."
(Emphasis added)
35. We have considered and gone through the records and the judgments and grounds taken by the Review Applicant and found no substantial grounds to intervene in the order impugned. The said order is appealable and the person aggrieved may file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
36. The Review Application No.02/2026 (CZ) is devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 30th January, 2026, Review Application No.02/2026(CZ) In Original Application No.93/2023(CZ) K 33 R.A. No.02/2026(CZ) Municipal Corporation Ajmer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.