Delhi High Court – Orders
Sri Ram Gupta vs Lalit Kumar And Ors on 27 February, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 595/2017
SRI RAM GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Mr. Ashish
Sareen, Mr. Adil Asghar, Mr. Ankit
Banati & Mr. Aditya Mishra,
Advocates
versus
LALIT KUMAR AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Bhargava & Mr. Navin
Chaudhary, Advocates for the
Applicant/R-1
Mr. Manu Nayar, Ms. Meenakshi
Bhatia, Mr. I.S. Sharma, Mr. Lalit
Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav Kush & Mr.
Nitin Kumar, Advocates for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 27.02.2026
REVIEW PETITION 146/2025 & REVIEW PETITION 184/2025
1. These are two review applications filed by the applicants/respondents
under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC“] and under
Order XLVII Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 CPC for the review of
judgment dated 23rd January, 2025.
2. Vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2025, this Court set aside the
impugned order dated 03rd April, 2017 and restored the order dated 25th
May, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, and in
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59
consequence thereto, dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 1
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in an eviction petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 [“DRC Act“]
against respondents No. 2 & 3.
3. The respective learned counsels, who appear for the respondents, have
argued that the judgment dated 23rd January, 2025 was passed without
considering the material facts as also the judgment of Rohit Dhankard Vs.
Vikas Gupta, CM Main 1352/20190, decided on 28th January, 2019 by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, holding therein that the supreme landlord is
the necessary party. It has been submitted that petitioner is not the owner of
the suit property, as misrepresented by him, and concealed his tenancy
before the learned Additional Rent Controller. He deliberately did not
implead the supreme landlord and other co-owners, who are necessary
parties. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed solely relying
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Dass
Vs. Naba Kumar Dass (2018) 2 SCC 352, which had also been discussed by
the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rohit Dhankard (supra).
4. It is argued that once the Coordinate Bench of the High Court has
already settled the question of law, a subsequent Bench of equal strength is
bound to follow the same view when confronted with the same issue and if
the later bench believes that the earlier view was erroneous or inapplicable
that ought not to be followed, the later Bench must refer the matter to a
larger Bench for reconsideration. The later Bench however cannot sidestep
or whittle down the earlier pronouncement. In support of such submission,
the learned counsels have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Adani Power Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59
Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 24729/2019), decided on 05th January, 2026.
5. It is argued that the judgment dated 23rd January, 2025 does not deal
with the judgment of Rohit Dhankard (supra) and the same is liable to be
reviewed on that account. It is also argued that the power of superintendence
conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bound
and not for correcting any mere errors. In this regard, reliance has been
placed on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Kushal Anand Vs. Mandhir Sachdeva, CM (M) 681/2022. It is thus
argued that the judgment dated 23rd January, 2025 is liable to be reviewed.
6. The learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner, has argued that
while passing the judgment dated 23rd January, 2025, the Court relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kanaklata
Dass (supra). He further submits that respondents have not been able to
point out any error apparent on the face of the record. They have not brought
on record any new fact or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence,
was not within their knowledge or could not be produced when the judgment
was passed. It is further argued that respondents No. 2 & 3 can otherwise
also not file the review petition since they are the tenants and had not filed
the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
7. The Court has considered the rival submissions. Under Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC, review is permissible only on the following grounds:-
i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence;
ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and
iii) any other sufficient reason.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59
8. What constitutes “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted
ejusdem generis with the above two grounds. It must be analogous in the
nature of discovery of new evidence or error apparent on record. While
exercising the review power, the Court is not to re-hear the matter on merits
as review is not an appeal in disguise and therefore cannot be used to correct
even an erroneous decision on merits. The scope of review has been
discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati & Ors. (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 320. The relevant paras of
the judgment read as under:-
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or
could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 to
mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of
India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT
(2013) 8 SC 275.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of
the case.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the
face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground
for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error
which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of
the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
9. Similarly, in the recent case of Malleswari Vs. K. Sugunand & Anr.
AIR 2025 Supreme Court 4143, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the
matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that
once a judgment is signed or announced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is
invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct the grave and
palpable errors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made pertinent observations in
para No. 17.2 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:-
“17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked
if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which
is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and
not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a
long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of
the record.”
10. Coming back to the present case, the Court finds that the judgment
dated 23rd January, 2025 has been passed after considering all the
submissions made by the respondents and after considering the law laid
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59
down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Dass (supra). Article 141
of the Constitution embodies the doctrine of precedent and ensures judicial
discipline and uniformity in the legal system. The law declared by the
Supreme Court of India is binding on all the High Courts, Subordinate
Courts and Tribunal throughout the territory of India. Thus, the decision
having been taken on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, cannot be challenged in the review on the ground that the judgment
does not take note of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The
Court is also fully conscious of the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and the judgment has been rendered within that scope only.
11. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record. Respondents, in fact, seek to challenge the merit of
the judgment in the garb of review petition, which is not permissible. The
Court, therefore, finds no merits in the review applications filed by the
respondents. The same are accordingly dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2026
RM
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/03/2026 at 20:32:59