Dismissed

Ram Niwas Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2023REVP/131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 CPC. The court held that the petitioner failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record, and allowing a review would effectively convert it into an appeal, which is not sustainable in law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Niwas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 131 of 2023

¶5

Ram Niwas Sahu S/o Ganpat Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, Working As Teacher (L.B.) at Govt. T.W.D. Middile School Shivpur, B.E.O. Ramanujnagar, Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Secretary Of Aadim Jati And Anushuchit Jati Vikash Vibhag Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Joint Director (Treasury, Accounts And Pension) Sarguja Division, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶12

Block Education Officer Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

District Education Officer Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

Petitioner Mr. Ram Niwas Sahu appears in person For Respondent /State Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate

¶16

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶17

6/10/2023

¶18

Heard.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present review petition to review the order dated 22.8.2023 passed in WPS No. 5200/2020.

¶21

This Court has perused the grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition for review and it appears that that in the entire petition, the petitioner has failed to point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

¶22

It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶23

The scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The applicant prays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another , [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612].

¶24

Recently, in the matter of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors (judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in

¶25

¶26

Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.

¶27