(Prayer in C.M.P.(MD) No.1423 of 2026: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the above review application against the judgment and decree passed in SA (MD) No.275 of 2019.

In Rev.Aplc (MD) No.101901 of 2025 : Review Application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 and 2 CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2025 rendered in SA (MD) No.275 of 2019.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant through Video Conferencing.

2. This review application SR is filed along with an application, being C.M.P.(MD) No.1423 of 2026, seeking to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the review application to review the judgment made in S.A.(MD) No.275 of 2019, dated 09.07.2025.

3. In the application filed seeking to condone the delay, the reason has been given in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which reads as follows:

                     “4. The above Second Appeal in S.A(MD) No.275 of 2019 on the file of this Honourable High Court was dismissed on 09.07.2025. Since, I was suffering from illness and was able to approach the Counsel on record only on 16.10.2025 and thereafter copy application was made and received it on the same day. Thereafter I preferred the above review application and hence, there is delay in preferring the above review application against S.A.(MD) No.275 of 2019 and the delay is only due to the above bonafide reasons and not on account of any wanton or willful. If the delay is not condoned, I will be greatly prejudiced and put to heavy and irreparable loss.”

4. Except a vague statement that the petitioner/review applicant was suffering from illness and was unable to contact the counsel on record, no other details have been furnished in the affidavit explaining the delay of 105 days in filing the review application.

5. It is to be noted that neither the counsel on record, nor the counsel, who had appeared in the second appeal, had filed the present review application.

6. The second appeal was heard on merits and disposed of by a detailed judgment delivered by this court on 09.07.2025. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it has been specifically stated that “the second appeal has not been admitted and by order dated 24.6.2019, this Court had only issued notice to the respondent”. After adjudicating the appeal on merits, in paragraph 16, this Court observed that “no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the second appeal.”

7. Now the petitioner/review applicant had come up with a review application along with an application to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the review application. All that the petitioner/review applicant has raised in the review application is that substantial questions of law framed have not been answered by this Court.

8. As stated supra, the second appeal was never admitted and, this Court, after adjudicating the appeal on merits, specifically observed that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant would submit that they have raised two substantial questions of law in the second appeal for consideration of this Court and the same have not been answered. She would further submit that she will verify as to whether the second appeal was admitted or not on any substantial question of law.

10. When the review application has been filed mainly on the ground that substantial questions of law have not been answered by this Court, it is for the petitioner/review applicant to verify and state whether the appeal was admitted on any substantial question of law. When the fact remains that the appeal was never admitted and substantial question of law was not framed, this Court, while hearing the appeal on merits, has adjudicated in detail and passed a reasoned judgment finding that the appeal was never admitted and further holding that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. The only argument that is sought to be raised is nothing but a ground which cannot be entertained while exercising review jurisdiction.

11. Review application could be entertained only if it falls within the contours of Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC. The scope of review has been reiterated by the Apex Court as well as this Court from time to time. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, the Apex Court held thus:

                     “25. ... The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided".

12. The petitioner/review applicant cannot be allowed to reargue the appeal under the guise of review. Review is not an appeal in disguise and, if the petitioner/review applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the second appeal, it is for him to seek further remedy as contemplated under law.

13. Finding that no ground has been made out on which review could be entertained and also further finding that there is no proper reasoning adduced in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay, C.M.P.(MD) No.1423 of 2026 and Rev.Aplc.(MD) SR No.101901 of 2025 stand rejected.

There shall be no order as to costs.