Courts Can’t Cure Strategic Lapses, Review Is Not a Do-Over: Delhi HC Slams Govt’s Review Plea

Review Plea Dismissed in Land Dispute Case Over Police Station – Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the State Government of NCT Delhi, reiterating in no uncertain terms that the power of review is not a backdoor to reargue lost causes, nor a forum for litigants to remedy omissions they never raised at the proper time.

In a strongly worded judgment authored by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, the Court rejected the Government’s attempt to revisit its failed appeal in a land dispute involving an operational police station, noting that “a review cannot be used to improve pleadings or introduce entirely new grounds under the guise of ‘errors’.”

“You Can’t Claim COVID Limitation Relief Two Years Late” – Court Dismisses Fresh Plea Raised Only in Review

The Government’s principal contention was that its application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, filed on 27 January 2022, should have been considered within time, citing the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation suspension orders.

However, Justice Sudha pointed out that this argument had never been raised before the trial court or even in the original appeal. Calling this a “new ground introduced through the backdoor,” the Court held:

“The exclusion of limitation during COVID-19 cannot be claimed for the first time in review. That is not an error apparent on the face of the record – it’s a strategic omission, and review jurisdiction cannot be used to fill such gaps.”

False Claim of Ignorance Exposed: “You Were Appearing After the Ex-Parte Order Too”

The review petition also reiterated the claim that the State only became aware of the ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 upon receiving execution summons in December 2021. But the Court rejected this as blatantly false, referring to undisputed court records showing appearances by police officers even after being proceeded ex-parte.

“The petitioners themselves admit appearing on 11.10.2018. Their plea of ignorance doesn’t hold water when they were actively participating in proceedings well after the case was transferred to the district court,” the Court noted.

Public Interest Argument Fails to Impress: “You Never Raised Systemic Delay Before”

Attempting to invoke public interest and institutional delay as a ground for review, the Government cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023). However, the Court observed that no such argument had ever been made earlier.

“There was no plea of breakdown in communication or systemic delay in the appeal. This Court cannot construct a new case that the litigant itself never advanced,” Justice Sudha wrote.

Review Jurisdiction Is Not a Safety Net for Careless Litigation

Citing a series of Supreme Court rulings, including Thungabhadra Industries and Parison Devi, the High Court stressed that review is limited to correcting patent errors – not for relitigating settled findings or presenting better arguments the second time around.

“An error must strike the eye, not emerge after elaborate argument,” the Court observed, affirming the finality of its 28 November 2025 judgment.

Review Dismissed, No Costs Awarded

The High Court ultimately held that no error apparent on the face of the record had been shown, and dismissed the review petition without costs.