Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs a- Smt. Tara Devi (Delted) as Per Honble Court Order Dated 26/11/2021.

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 66 of 2026

¶5

1 - Ramesh Kumar Mishra S/o Asharfilal Mishra Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Chachadi, Patwari Halka No. 16, R. I. Circle Dashrangpur, Tahsil And District Kawardha, Cg State.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - A- Smt. Tara Devi (Delted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 26/11/2021. Nil

¶9

1.1 - B. Smt. Uma Devi W/o Shyamsundar Tiwari Grade-I Clerk, O/o Upper Commissioner, Tribal Development Tribunal, Post Mukam, Rewa Madhya Pradesh., District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh

¶10

1.2 - 1-C . Ramkrishna Mishra (Dead) Through Lrs. Advocate, Kawardha/kabirdham, District - Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

1.2.1 - C (A). Smt. Sarita Mishra W/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 65 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

1.2.2 - C. (B). Manish Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 45 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶13

1.2.3 - C.(C) Ashish Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶14

1.2.4 - C.(D). Chandresh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶15

1.2.5 - C.(E). Askhilesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 34 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶16

1.2.6 - C.(F). Smt. Shraddha Mishra D/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged

¶17

2

¶18

About 40 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶19

1.2.7 - C.(G). Smriti Dwivedi D/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Pradeep Auto Parts, Near Police Station Old Bus Stand Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶20

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Respondent(s)

¶22

For Review Petitioner	: Mr.K.R. Nair, Advocate along with Dr.
	Veena Nair, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate

¶23

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶24

20.03.2026

¶25

1. Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing review petition.

¶26

2. Taking into consideration submission made by Mr. Nair and the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶27

3. Delay of 68 days in filing review petition is hereby condoned.

¶28

4. Heard on admission.

¶29

5. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought the recall/modification of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in First Appeal No.157 of 2004, whereby the first appeal filed by the review petitioner/appellant was dismissed.

¶30

6. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that the observation has been made in para 20 of the judgment passed in First Appeal No.157 of 2004 that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for partition; rather, he has filed suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. Mr. Nair would further submit

¶31

3

¶32

that the Nayab Tehsildar, Kawardha had passed an order for partition in a proceeding initiated under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short’ the Code of 1959’) on 02.06.2011 and that document was not placed along with the Civil Suit. It is contended that as suit property was already partitioned between the parties, therefore, suit for declaration of title and possession was filed. He would pray for recall of order dated 07.08.2025 passed in First Appeal No.157 of 2004.

¶33

7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State would oppose.

¶34

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on the record.

¶35

9. The document Ex.R/3 was not placed either before the learned Trial Court or before this Court. The order of partition was passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, Kawardha in a proceeding initiated under Section 178 of the Code of 1959. As this document was not brought to the notice of the defendants and further, for the first time, this document has been filed along with the review petition, it cannot be considered for adjudication of the issue involved. In the judgment passed in First Appeal No.157 of 2004, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record warranting its review.

¶36

10. On due consideration of the above-discussed facts, it can safely be held that pleadings and grounds raised in the review petition are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the first appeal which is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶37

11. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with

¶38

4

¶39

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.

¶40

12. 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

¶41

a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶42

“ Order 47 Rule 1 CPC :

¶43

(1) Application for review of judgment - Any person considering himself aggrieved-

¶44

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

¶45

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶46

(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)

¶47

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.

¶48

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."

¶49

13. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others

¶50

reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held

¶51

as under:-

¶52

“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.”

¶53

5

¶54

14. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in

¶55

2019 (20) SCC 753 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:-

¶56

15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675)

¶57

"10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

¶58

Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56)

¶59

It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."

¶60

The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:

¶61

"The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:

¶62

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶63

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶64

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

¶65

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate.

¶66

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.

¶67

In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the

¶68

6

¶69

facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.

¶70

15. 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 disguise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.”

¶71

16. 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.”

¶72

17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgments, I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed .

¶73

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶74

Rekha

Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. a- Smt. Tara Devi (Delted) as Per Honble Court Order Dated 26/11/2021.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. a- Smt. Tara Devi (Delted) as Per Honble Court Order Dated 26/11/2021.

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

Smt. Shushila Devi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pratibha Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Lal Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohnish Gautam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Viresh Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh