Dismissed¶37

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2026REVP/155/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court REVP No. 155 of 2026 dismissed; review/recall of order dated 12.02.2026 in WPC No. 606/2026 refused; alternative remedy — appeal under Section 77, Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act 1960; Section 79 bar on appeal/review not attracted; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; error apparent on the face of the record versus erroneous decision; review petition not an appeal in disguise; Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) v. Vinod Kumar Rawat (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020) applied; Deputy Registrar order dated 24.09.2025 appealable; Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 6 (Deputy Registrar) was very much appealable under Section 77 of the Act of 1960. ¶32

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in WPC No. 606/2026 should be recalled/reviewed, i.e., whether there exists any ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

WPC No. 606/2026 was not decided on merits; it was disposed of on the ground of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 77 of the Act 1960 against the order dated 24.09.2025.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 6 (Deputy Registrar) was very much appealable under Section 77 of the Act of 1960.

¶32

Key takeaways

No circumstances contemplated under Section 79 of the Act of 1960 — which bars appeal or review in certain cases — were found to be present.ratio¶32
In light of the review principles (error apparent on the face of the record, per Shri Ram Sahu) and since the writ petition was disposed of on the alternative-remedy ground with no Section 79 circumstances present, this Court is not inclined to review or recall the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in WPC No. 606/2026.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

REVP No. 155 of 2026 — Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh — Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. — Review petition seeking recall/modification/review of the order dated 12.02.2026 in WPC No. 606/2026, by which the writ petition challenging the Deputy Registrar's order dated 24.09.2025 was disposed of on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy (appeal under Section 77 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960). Held: (i) the Deputy Registrar's order dated 24.09.2025 was very much appealable under Section 77 of the Act of 1960, and no circumstances contemplated under Section 79 (which bars appeal or review in certain cases) were present; (ii) the writ petition having been disposed of on the alternative-remedy ground and not on merits, and applying the Supreme Court's principles in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 — that review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, an erroneous decision cannot be 'reheard and corrected', and a review petition cannot be 'an appeal in disguise' — the Court was not inclined to review or recall the order dated 12.02.2026. Review petition dismissed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.06.16 10:20:17 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:23703

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

REVP No. 155 of 2026

¶7

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur A Registered Housing Cooperative Society Under C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, Through Its President, Indra Nath Singh, Aged About 73 Years, S/o Late Shri Chandra Bali Singh, R/o A/27, Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - Registrar Cooperative Societies Department Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Commissioner/secretary Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Election Commission And State Co-Operative Societies Department, Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶12

4 - Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative Societies Department, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶13

5 - Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies Department, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶14

6 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Department, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶15

... Respondents.

¶16

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶17

For Applicant	: Mr. Saket	Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents	: Mr. Anish	Tiwari, Dy. GA.

¶18

¶19

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

15/06/2026

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This Review Petition has been filed by the applicant seeking recall/ modification/review of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.606/2026.

¶24

For the ready reference the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶25

"5. Having considered efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order (Annexure -P/1) by filing an appeal under Section 77 of the Act of 1960, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence the same is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail aforesaid statutory remedy.

¶26

6 . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. "

¶27

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur was not appealable in view of provision contained in Section 79 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies, Act 1960 (henceforth " Act 1960 "). Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 may be recalled and original writ petition may be restored for hearing. In support of his contention, he also submits that in similar cases this Court has passed the order staying the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

¶28

¶29

In reply, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the order dated 24.09.2025 is very well appealable under Section 77 of the Act 1960. Hence, this review petition has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place with the petition.

¶31

It is worth mentioning here that WPC No.606/2026 was not decided on merits, rather it was disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy available to the applicant (petitioner therein) to file an appeal against the order dated 24.09.2025 under Section 77 of the Act 1960.

¶32

Furthermore, the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 6 herein was very much appealable under Section 77 of the Act of 1960. No circumstances were found to be present as contemplated under Section 79 of the Act of 1960, which bars appeal or review in certain cases.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 in case of S hri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors , had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake 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. However, held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected

¶34

¶35

by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.

¶36

In light of the above principles and as stated in the preceding paragraph that WPC No. 606/2026 was not considered by this Court on its merits, rather, it was disposed of on account of an alternative efficacious remedy available to the applicant/petitioner under Section 77 of the Act of 1960, further considering that there are no circumstances found as contemplated under Section 79 of the Act of 1960, this Court is not inclined to review or recall the order dated 12.02.2026 passed in WPC No. 606/2026.

¶37

In the result, the review petition is dismissed.

¶38

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶40

Ajay

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrapali Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Singh Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anamika Pandey Vs Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh

Gurmeet Singh Bedi Vs Municipal Corporation Durg

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Rewati Sahu

Smt. Lakeshwari Sahu Vs Ramesh Kumar Sahu

Ramkumar Aditya Vs State of Chhattisgarh