1 2025:CGHC:18742-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 100 of 2025 1 - Dr. Garima Ingole D/o Rajendra Ingole Aged About 33 Years R/o Presently Pursuing M.D. (Anatomy) At Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department, Of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Medical Education, North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Department of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Dean Government Medical College, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 522/2025, by which this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Director Medical Education to the Additional Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department on 07.11.2023 with recommendation to grant NOC. But the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 18.01.2025 which is after a lapse of about 1 year and 2 months. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that other similarly situated candidates application granted NOC but the petitioner has been deprived by the same. The Director Medical Education has again made a communication on 17.02.2025 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that on 14.11.2024 the recommendation was already made for issuance of NOC in favour of the petitioner, therefore, there is genuine reason in favour of the review petitioner and the review petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in WPC No. 522/2025 may be recalled and directed the respondent to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 3 5. At this juncture it would be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to review. 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: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (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) (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. 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." 4 6. 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.” 7. 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.” 8. 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.” 9. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 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 5 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.” 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 12. In the present review petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 522/2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. The subsequent communication dated 17.02.2025 cannot be made as a ground for review of the order dated 27.01.2025, which has already been passed on the basis of the documents annexed with the petition at that time. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 27.01.2025, therefore, the prayer sought for reviewing of the order dated 27.01.2025 and restoring the WPC No. 522/2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 6 13. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.28 18:30:36 +0530