-1- 2025:CGHC:6055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 234 of 2022 Ras Bihari Das S/o Late Markand Das Aged About 75 Years Occupation Translator, R/o J-78, Sector - 2, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Chief Election Officer Office Chief Election Officer, Chhattisgarh Shastri Chowk, Old Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the judgment dated 27.04.2019 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 6B/2018, arising out of the judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the XIVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 1B/2017, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, thereby affirming the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that Civil Suit No. 1B/2017 was filed for the recovery of 14,900/- against the respondent/defendant. He ₹ further submits that the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2018. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner preferred a first appeal -2- under Section 96 of the CPC before the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6B/2018. However, the appeal was also dismissed on the ground of limitation vide judgment dated 27.04.2019. He contends that since the recovery amount was less than 25,000/-, the petitioner ₹ preferred a civil revision (CR No. 75/2019) before this Court, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 25.10.2021. As the petitioner had no other remedy available, he preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgments passed by the learned Civil Court and the Appellate Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments along with other documents available on the record. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a civil suit for the recovery of 14,900/-, which ₹ was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, a revision petition was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed, despite being otherwise maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC. Since a decree has already been passed against the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court, while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate court under Section 100 of the CPC. The civil revision preferred by the petitioner has already been dismissed, and that order has attained finality. 5. In view of the above-discussed facts, no case is made out in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim