Review Jurisdiction Not a Backdoor for Re-Adjudication: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the power of review is an extremely restricted jurisdiction that cannot be utilized by dissatisfied litigants to re-argue a case or fill lacunae that were not addressed during the original proceedings.

In a matter presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, the Court dealt with a review petition filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) seeking to set aside an earlier order that had directed the implementation of a labor tribunal award. The Court emphasized that a review proceeding is not a continuation of the appellate process and cannot be used to substitute one possible view with another.

Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that the power of review is an extremely limited power and cannot be exercised as if the Court were sitting in appeal over its own judgment. Review jurisdiction does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits, nor does it authorize a party to seek a different conclusion merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts. A review proceeding is not intended to provide a dissatisfied litigant with a second opportunity to re-argue the case and invite the Court to undertake a fresh appraisal of the issues already adjudicated."

Addressing the petitioners' attempt to bring new facts into the record via the review route, the Court noted that a fact neither pleaded nor argued at the time of the original hearing cannot later be cited as an 'error apparent on the face of the record.' Relying on the principles laid down in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Anr. ( "decided on 08.09.2025": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 660), the Bench reiterated that an error must be self-evident to warrant review, while debatable points of law do not fall under this ambit.

Background:

The dispute originated from an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, on July 17, 2019, which directed the reinstatement of a respondent-workman with consequential benefits. In a subsequent writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 79/2020), the High Court allowed the workman’s plea on November 12, 2025, based on the understanding that the RSRTC had not challenged the tribunal's award, thus making it final.

RSRTC moved the present review petition under Constitution of India and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming that the award had indeed been challenged before the Jaipur Bench, but this fact was not brought to the Court's notice due to a bona fide error. They also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone a 138-day delay in filing the review.

While the Court condoned the delay in the interest of justice, it refused to entertain the review on merits. It held that the RSRTC was essentially seeking a fresh adjudication of the controversy. The Court noted that subsequent developments, such as the restoration of a previously dismissed writ petition, do not constitute grounds for review under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 148/2026
NeutralCitation: [2026:RJ-JD:27060]
Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Shyam Sundar Vaishnav
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Avin Chhangani, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Urmila Chauhan for Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 59