Page | 1 Sl. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Review. Pet. No. 23 of 2019 The Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei PS Petitioner Vs. Sarungbam Ibomcha Singh; & Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR (ORDER) 02.09.2025 Learned Government Advocate for the review petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Sanasam is present before the Court physically and submits that service of process against the respondents has already been completed. This submission which is made by the learned Government Advocate is taken on record. This review petition has been initiated by the Officer-in- Charge, Singjamei PS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Chapter IX of the Manipur High Court Rules, 2019 seeking for review of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1182 of 2018. This review petition is of the year 2019 and there is no progress made by the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner. However, in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, wherein in Para 9, it is indicated that in the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.09.02 14:29:21 +05'30' Page | 2 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 the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace. Wherein in para 11, it is indicated that In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/1360/1997 : (1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very pivotal observations: 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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 of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of reliance which is made (Supra) are concerned, this review petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this review petition is hereby dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep