1 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 126 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.05.2026 Decided on: 29.06.2026 Date of uploading on website: 29.06.2026 _________________________________________________ Arif Khan ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1948 of 2024 with a prayer that the same may be reviewed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) respondents/State and have perused the material available on record.

3. In the review petition it has been stated that while passing impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025, the Court could not consider that respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 in para 15 of the reply has specifically admitted that if the period for exemption claimed involved is more than three months, in such cases, the Government is competent to accord the permission and the taxation authority is required to ensure that the vehicle remained off road during the period and is not used in any public place during the specified period and for the said purpose communication vide Annexures R-1, R-II and R-III has been issued. It has further been mentioned in the petition that while passing judgment dated 15.05.2025, this Court erroneously could not consider that respondents No. 1, 3, 5 & 8 have clearly admitted in para 10 to 12 of the reply that certificate dated 29.12.2023 was issued by respondent No. 8 to the effect that the vehicles in issue remained stationery in the company premises. Hence, while passing the judgment under review, erroneous omission of 3 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) the record has resulted into the error apparent on the face of the record.

4. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. 5. Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review petition. The same are that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after 4 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) exercise of due diligence which was not within its knowledge or could not be produced by it 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 or for any other sufficient reason.

6. In S. Nagraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the scope of review observing as under:-"19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. 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……….” 7. 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 number of judgments including Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj 5 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) Rai and Ors., AIR 1941 FC 1; and Rajunder Narain Rae v. 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. and Anr. v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 578.

8. A Full Bench of this Court, in N. D. Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. 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 v. 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 and Anr. v. Anath Nath Mitter and Ors., AIR 1949 FC 106 wherein it was held as under:- 6 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) "10......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 Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code."

9. Similarly, in Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a party is aggrieved of a judgment by a 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. 10. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and 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 7 ( 2026:HHC:25158 )

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:-"24. 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." 11. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized to the effect that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party filing a review petition on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the 8 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.

12. Therefore, the instant case requires consideration in view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. This Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2025 has specifically recorded in its findings that neither previous owner/department having possession of the motor vehicles nor the petitioner submitted any previous intimation before the competent authority seeking exemption and thus was not entitled to benefit of Section 14(3) of the Act. It is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner has purchased vehicles in question pursuant to the copy of brochure of auction-cum-tender, condition No. 19 of which, would go to show that it was for the successful bidder/purchaser to pay GST, TDS, levies, duties taxes and cesses including registration charges, stamp duty etc. as were applicable, over and above the approved bid amount. Thus, it does not now lie in the month of the petitioner that he be exempted from payment of taxes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the 9 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) record while passing the judgment in question. There is no sufficient ground on the basis of which the petition for review can be entertained. It is not the case where interference at this stage is required. The review petition is totally misconceived, as such, the same is dismissed, with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sushil Kukreja) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge June 29, 2026 (raman)

1 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 126 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.05.2026 Decided on: 29.06.2026 Date of uploading on website: 29.06.2026 _________________________________________________ Arif Khan ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1948 of 2024 with a prayer that the same may be reviewed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) respondents/State and have perused the material available on record.

3. In the review petition it has been stated that while passing impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025, the Court could not consider that respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 in para 15 of the reply has specifically admitted that if the period for exemption claimed involved is more than three months, in such cases, the Government is competent to accord the permission and the taxation authority is required to ensure that the vehicle remained off road during the period and is not used in any public place during the specified period and for the said purpose communication vide Annexures R-1, R-II and R-III has been issued. It has further been mentioned in the petition that while passing judgment dated 15.05.2025, this Court erroneously could not consider that respondents No. 1, 3, 5 & 8 have clearly admitted in para 10 to 12 of the reply that certificate dated 29.12.2023 was issued by respondent No. 8 to the effect that the vehicles in issue remained stationery in the company premises. Hence, while passing the judgment under review, erroneous omission of 3 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) the record has resulted into the error apparent on the face of the record.

4. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. 5. Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review petition. The same are that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after 4 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) exercise of due diligence which was not within its knowledge or could not be produced by it 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 or for any other sufficient reason.

6. In S. Nagraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the scope of review observing as under:-"19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. 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……….” 7. 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 number of judgments including Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj 5 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) Rai and Ors., AIR 1941 FC 1; and Rajunder Narain Rae v. 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. and Anr. v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 578.

8. A Full Bench of this Court, in N. D. Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. 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 v. 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 and Anr. v. Anath Nath Mitter and Ors., AIR 1949 FC 106 wherein it was held as under:- 6 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) "10......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 Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code."

9. Similarly, in Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a party is aggrieved of a judgment by a 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. 10. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and 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 7 ( 2026:HHC:25158 )

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:-"24. 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." 11. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized to the effect that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party filing a review petition on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the 8 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.

12. Therefore, the instant case requires consideration in view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. This Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2025 has specifically recorded in its findings that neither previous owner/department having possession of the motor vehicles nor the petitioner submitted any previous intimation before the competent authority seeking exemption and thus was not entitled to benefit of Section 14(3) of the Act. It is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner has purchased vehicles in question pursuant to the copy of brochure of auction-cum-tender, condition No. 19 of which, would go to show that it was for the successful bidder/purchaser to pay GST, TDS, levies, duties taxes and cesses including registration charges, stamp duty etc. as were applicable, over and above the approved bid amount. Thus, it does not now lie in the month of the petitioner that he be exempted from payment of taxes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the 9 ( 2026:HHC:25158 ) record while passing the judgment in question. There is no sufficient ground on the basis of which the petition for review can be entertained. It is not the case where interference at this stage is required. The review petition is totally misconceived, as such, the same is dismissed, with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sushil Kukreja) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge June 29, 2026 (raman)