The High Court rejected a review petition filed by two applicants, holding that there was no apparent mistake on the face of the record and the petition essentially sought to re-argue the case afresh, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Review petition dismissed with no liberty to file a fresh review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 96 of 2023
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
(Application for review of the order dated 21-3-2023 passed in WP(S) No 8284 of 2022.
(By circulation in chamber)
S.B. :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
27-07-2023
“2. That, the current petitioners have
2
different grounds raised at the learned Single Bench in WPS No 8284 of 2022, order dated 21-3-2023 which is later appealed at the learned Double Bench in Digeshwar Kumars vs. State of Chhattisgarh bearing case No WA/195/2023. Where the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the case of the current petitioners is distinguishable from the case of the other petitioners decided by the writ court where the current petitioners were allowed to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to file a review petition before the writ court”.
3
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Raju
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition disclosing no apparent mistake on the face of the record is maintainable.
Whether the petitioners are permitted to argue the entire case afresh under the garb of a review petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar ChowdharyExplained¶26
Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455 · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas v. Union of IndiaExplained¶26
Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 · Who else cites this
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of OrissaExplained¶26
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85 · Who else cites this
Government of T.N. v. M. Ananchu AsariExplained¶26
Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332 · Who else cites this
Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech ElectrothermicsExplained¶26
Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Digeshwar Kumar
Suraj Kumar Patel
State of Chhattisgarh
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
