STATE OF H.P. Vs. BEENA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the order dated 24.10.2013, we find that affidavit could have been filed only within a period of two weeks and that too subject to payment of costs, which was not so done, within the stipulated period of time. The orders being peremptory in nature, no interference is warranted in the light of our indulgence already shown to the State. As such, we do not find any justification for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. In any event, we also do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In our considered view, there is neither any mistake nor error apparent on the face of record or sufficient reason so as to take in its sweep, a ground analogous to those specified in the statutory provisions. There is no material error, manifest on the face of the record, undermining its soundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling the party to be reheard, simply because the party wants a decision to be otherwise.

(2.) KEEPING in view the principles laid down in Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati & others, : (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav versus Vishwanath Chaturvedi & others, : (2013) 2 SCC 1, present petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.