Jagdish Singh Chauhan v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

1. This Review Petition has been sought against judgment dated 04th December 2025 passed by this Court wherein the Writ Petition filed by petitioner was dismissed.

2. A perusal of the grounds taken in the Review Petition bear out that petitioner seeks to agitate the same set of issues, as have been addressed in the Writ Petition and has now been assessed by this Court and a judgment W.P (C) 17466/2025 2 of 5 has been passed (of which review is sought).

3. Petitioner raises an issue that, in paragraph 22, the Court made an observation that petitioner seems to have been consistent in litigating against respondent no.3/Society on one pretext or the other. However, this was not determinative of the assessment on the judgment, as noted in paragraph 23, where the Court clearly stated that “be that as it may, it will be important to consider his contentions”. Thereafter, the Court assessed his contentions in the judgment dated 04th December 2025.

4. Further this Court in paragraph no. 18 of the judgment had merely noted the submission of counsel for respondent no.3/Society made before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (‘DCT’) that “petitioner was misusing his position as a practicing advocate and was unnecessarily harassing respondent no.3/Society and its office bearers”.

5. Most of the other issues raised in the Review Petition hark back to the facts of the matter, which in any event, as stated in the judgment, are not amenable to exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950; this aspect has already been dealt in paragraph 34 of the judgment. Petitioner expects the Court to go through an extensive fact-finding inquiry which cannot be permitted.

6. In the opinion of this Court, arguments have been heard and the Court, after assessment of the submissions on record has passed the judgment dated 04th December 2025. W.P (C) 17466/2025 3 of 5

7. As regards the argument that there has been a misapplication of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has given its opinion in paragraph 35 of the said judgment.

8. In fact, it must be noted that post the passing of the judgment, another application being CM APPL. 5007/2026 has been moved by petitioner to place additional documents on record which form a compendium of 16 annexures of documents dating back to 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 till 2022.

9. Though, the petitioner is entitled to exercise his right to file a Review Petition, the contents of the same does exhibit propensity to keep on litigating, even when there have been multiple determinations at various levels by different authorities /Courts.

10. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the scope of review jurisdiction as noted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Radha Rani Metal v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, 2026:DHC:814-DB where this Court while dismissing the Review Petition noted that the review jurisdiction cannot be equated with original hearing of the case. Reliance was placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors (2013) 8 SCC 320 in paragraph 6, which is extracted as under:

W.P (C) 17466/2025 4 of 5

(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.