Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Kotwani

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2024REVP/246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the petition failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. It relied on Supreme Court precedents stating that review is not permissible for rehearings or to correct erroneous decisions, and noted that no new matter was discovered.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as it was sans merit and disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Kumar Kotwani — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:45769

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No. 246 of 2024

¶6

(Arising out of the order passed in WPC No. 1729/2024 dated 24.09.2024)

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Senani, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Bhilai, Tehsil and District-Dug (C.G.) (Respondent No.1)

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (Respondent No.2)

¶9

The Additional Tehsildar, Durg, Court of Nayab Tehsildar, Durg- 02, Tehsil and District- Durg (C.G.) (Respondent No.3)

¶10

The Maal Jamadar, Durg, Tehsil office, Durg, Tehsil and District-Durg (C.G.) (Respondent No.4)

¶11

The Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Durg, Tehsil and District-Durg (C.G.) (Respondent No.5)

¶12

The Competent Authority, Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhikari, Durg, Tehsil and District-Durg (C.G.) (Respondent No.6)

¶13

... Applicants

¶14

versus

¶15

Rajesh Kumar Kotwani S/o Radha Kisan Kotwani, Aged About 53 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Polsay Para, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Writ Petitioner)

¶16

... Respondent

¶17

For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

22/11/2024

¶20

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶21

Applicants have filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No.1729/2024 whereby writ petition was allowed directing applicants herein to unseal the shop in question and handover the possession thereof to respondent herein.

¶22

Learned counsel for applicants submits that while allowing writ petition, the Court has considered that the shop owned by applicant No.1, which is a

¶23

2 / 4

¶24

government agency, was given to respondent herein on rent, therefore, petitioner/respondent herein could have been evicted in a proceeding initiated under the Chhattisgarh Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act of 1974’). The provisions of the Act of 1974 are not applicable to the facts of the case because the authority who signed the rent agreement dated 10.10.2016 was not authorized or competent to enter into any agreement with respect to government land. However, the aforesaid fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing. Even otherwise, said rent agreement has been declared void and unenforceable by the Courts, therefore, respondent has no right to seek his eviction by adopting recourse of the Act of 1974.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent has supported the order under review.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review.

¶27

This Court while allowing writ petition filed by respondent herein, has observed that respondent No.1 / applicant no.1 herein entered into agreement with petitioner/respondent herein and put him in possession of the shop, which was subject matter of writ petition. Further, in the opinion of this Court, registration of revenue case by the Tahsildar pursuant to letter written by respondent No.1 to writ petition after dismissal of civil suit, initiation of proceeding of sealing of shop was per se without authority of law.

¶28

The grounds urged by learned counsel for applicants to seek review of the order dated 24.09.2024 have already been argued by learned counsel representing respondents in the batch of petitions, the same have been considered and decided by this Court in the order under review.

¶29

It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.

¶32

In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677 , it was held thus:-

¶33

“25. …....... The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down:

¶34

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.”

¶35

It is also not the case of the applicants that they discovered any new and important matter, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order under review. After considering the documents

¶36

4 / 4

¶37

available in record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties,

¶38

the order under review was passed.

¶39

Considering the grounds raised by applicants in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 24.09.2024.

¶40

Review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶43

pwn

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Kotwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Kotwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anupama Singh Vs Udaypal Singh

Kaushal Prasad Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Chandra Dutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Nohar Prasad Jangade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Ahirwar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Fedration Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh