Respondent petitioners filed a review petition challenging an order dismissing their underlying writ regarding land rights eviction. The court rejected the plea, holding that review cannot serve as a substitute for appeal or a platform to re-argue the same issues, finding no error apparent on the face of the record.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Review Petition No. 66 of 2024
Versus
---- Non-Applicants
By Circulation in Chamber Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
08.04.2024
1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the Chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.
2. By way of this review petition, the applicants (respondents No. 7 and 8 in writ petition) has made the following relief/prayer:-
3. In this review petition, the petitioners seek a modify/recall of the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1218/2024 on the ground that the applicants were not heard in the underlying writ petition because of which only one-sided story favouring respondent No. 7 (petitioner in writ petition) was placed before this Court.
4. It is pleaded that, since the petitioners herein were not present or represented before the Court and they could not put their version. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 7 concealed this fact that he himself stood in violation of an earlier order of stay upon his ongoing construction passed by the Naib Tehsildar and this fact was not taken note of by the Naib Tehsildar in its order of eviction.
5. It is also pleaded that the Naib Tehsildar had called for the Patwari’s report in which it was found that the land rightfully belonged to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No. 7 could have preferred an application for stay of the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar before the said authority itself, but in spite of that, he preferred the writ and present selected facts and has secured the above said order.
6. It is further pleaded that till date no appeal has been preferred by respondent No. 7 that he so pressed upon in WPC No. 1218/2024 and he is only using the order passed by this Court to his benefit. It is also pleaded that respondent No. 7 is only interested in keeping his construction and illegal encroachment alive by whatsoever means he can
and that is why he has not filed any appeal till date despite pressing upon it in his writ before this Court and the legal issue which was existing in the instant case has not even been considered by this Court, which is sought to be reviewed herein. Therefore, the petitioners prays to allow the instant review petition and the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1218/2024 may be modified and recalled.
7. I have perused all the grounds/pleadings raised in the instant review petition.
8. On consideration of the above-stated grounds and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition.
9. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
10. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
“ Order 47 Rule 1 CPC :
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new
and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied)
Explanation . The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
11. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace .”
12. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. ”
13. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported 1997 (8) SCC 715 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:-
“ 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 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 limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise. ”
14. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board , reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “ The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided .”
15. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review .”
16. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa , reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:-
“ 8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record",
which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all. ”
17. The case [W.P.(C) No. 1218/2024] was decided by this Court on 27.02.2024 after discussing the entire facts and going through the records available, and in light of the principles of law laid down through various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1218/2024 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds of non-hearing and error on face of record constitute valid grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether review petitions can be used to re-argue questions already decided in the impugned writ order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of DelhiExplained¶39
M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167 · Who else cites this
Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and othersExplained¶40
Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845] · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and othersExplained¶41
Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others 1997 (8) SCC 715 · Who else cites this
M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity BoardExplained¶43
M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Beghar Foundation v. K.S. PuttaswamyExplained¶44
Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun BhavanappaExplained¶45
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa, AIR 1960 SC 137 · Who else cites this
Sunil Sundarani
Krishna Bai Sundarani
State of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
