Dismissed

Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization v. M/S Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2023REVP/154/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a review petition filed by EPFO as it sought to re-argue the matter afresh. The court held that review proceedings cannot convert into an appeal and must be strictly confined to correcting apparent mistakes on the face of record.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition No. 154 of 2022 dismissed as the petition lacked any apparent mistake on the face of record.

Central Board of Trustees, Employees… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 154 of 2022

¶5

Central Board Of Trustees, Epf Through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employeesprovident Fund Organisation Regional Offe, Raipur Chhattisgarh Blofk-D, Sfheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Commerfial Complex, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin 492004, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Bilaspur Spinning Mills And Industries Ltd. Lalkhadan, Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Sfope Minar, Core-Ii, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nagar Distrift Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Distrift : New Delhi, Delhi ---- Respondents

¶9

(Application for review of the order dated 5-4-2022 passed in WPL No. 177 of 2013

¶10

(By circulation in chamber)

¶11

S.B. :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

20-01-2023

¶13

The matter is taken up for fonsideration in the fhamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

¶14

The review petitioner seeks review of the order 5-4-2022 passed in WPL No. 177 of 2013 merely on the ground that without apprefiating the fafts and firfumstanfes of the fase as well as the question of law in its true perspeftive dismissed WPL No 177 of 2013.

¶15

On going through the order dated 5-4-2022 passed in WPL No 177 of 2013, it is manifest that after hearing the learned founsel for all the parties and after fonsidering all the aspefts of the matter, this Court has passed the order whifh is sought to be reviewed herein.

¶16

¶17

From bare perusal of the grounds raised by the petitioner for review of the order dated 5-4-2022, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is arguing the fase afresh and has not pointed out any apparent mistake whifh fan be refefted on the fafe of reford. The ground raised by the petitioner has already been fonsidered by this fourt while dismissing the petition, therefore, there is no apparent mistake on the fafe of reford whifh fan be reviewed. Even otherwise, the ground is nothing but amounting to re-argue the matter afresh whifh is not within the ambit and sfope of review as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

¶18

There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the reford and have not further brought into the notife, any new fafts, whifh fould not be produfed earlier despite diligent eforts made by the petitioners. It is well settled prinfiples of law that the review profeedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be striftly fonfned to the sfope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Profedure.

¶19

It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire fase afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, whifh is not permissible and tenable in law.

¶20

It is well settled prinfiple of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire fase afresh, whifh would amount to fonvert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etf. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananfhu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Eleftrifity Board v. Hitefh Eleftrothermifsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}.

¶21

¶22