The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed this review petition challenging the disposal of a writ petition. The bench held no error appeared on the face of the record, noting the applicant could not cite a basis for review and that rehearing is impermissible.
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 / 4
2024:CGHC:45989
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 184 of 202 0
(Arising out of the order passed in WPC No. 1114/2019 dated 22.08.2019)
... Applicants
versus
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
25/11/2024
2 / 4
person. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Northern India Caterers (India)
Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167].
3 / 4
they found the order of Board of Revenue to be erroneous. When order of Board of Revenue was not complied, writ petition was filed seeking compliance of the order of Board of Revenue and it was ordered by order dated 22.08.2019 which is sought to be reviewed, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record.
“18 . It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.”
4 / 4
available in record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties,
the order under review was passed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE
pwn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of 22.08.2019 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.
Whether the absence of a hearing on the impugned order itself constitutes a valid ground for review.
Whether any new important matter was discovered exercising due diligence to justify a review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455Referred¶30
Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126Referred¶30
Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86Relied on¶32
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Chhattisgarh
Anil Kumar Tiwari
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
