- (1.) It is not in dispute that the documents placed on record along with the review application, were not before the Writ court at the point in time when the writ petition was heard.
(2.) Learned counsel further has not been able to dispute that the legal aspect sought to be argued at this stage, was not argued when arguments in writ petition were heard.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with 2005(4) S.C.T. 40 : Review Application No. 174 of 2005 in CWP 17259 of 2004 (Mohinder Pal Bali v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others), decided on 5.8.2005, in regard to the scope of interference in review application, has held in the following terms :- "Normally, when the matter is being decided at motion stage, it is not possible always to notice all the judgments cited by the learned counsel. We had considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel, but reference was not made to the aforesaid two judgments as the same were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. It is not necessary that each and every argument raised by the counsel and each and every authority cited by the learned counsel, has to be considered, whether they are relevant or irrelevant. Given the huge pendency of old cases before the High Court, the Court has to perform a balancing act whilst recording the orders at the motion stage. The requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme in numerous cases is that when the petition is being disposed of at motion stage, the court should pass a speaking order. The requirement is not that an elaborate judgment be written dealing with all the relevant as well as irrelevant judgments that may be cited by the learned counsel. We have been constrained to pass a detailed order, in view of the tendency of the Advocates in the High Court to file review petitions, before challenging the order before the Supreme Court in SLP. The High Court has very limited jurisdiction to review its own orders. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others, 1979 AIR(SC) 1047 wherein it has been observed as under :- "3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, 'settlement' made in favour of the different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR(SC) 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court." Therefore, even if the counsel for the petitioner was of the opinion that our order dated 18.7.2005 was erroneous, the same ought to have been challenged by adopting the normal remedy of appeal. There were no justifiable grounds for filing the Review Petition.";