1 2025:CGHC:20369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 95 of 2025 1. Ganesh Hota (Since Dead) Through Lrs. Nil 1.1 - Smt. Aala Hota Wd/o Ganesh Hota Aged About 62 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Manjulata Hota D/o Ganesh Hota Aged About 43 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Jai Hota S/o Ganesh Hota Aged About 38 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Vijay Hota S/o Ganesh Hota Aged About 35 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.5 - Sanjay Hota S/o Ganesh Hota Aged About 33 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shrimati Ganeshi Hota D/o Late Ishwar Hota Aged About 67 Years Occupation - Labour (Presently Working With Lic, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh), R/o Gaushala Para, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahant Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.05.05 17:27:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 05.05.2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for review the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by this Court in FA No. 92 of 2009. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condondation of delay of 1134 days in filing the review petition. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application (IA No.01/2025), the same is allowed and the delay of 1134 days in filing the review petition is condoned. 4. The review petitioners (the legal heirs of the appellant/defendant in the first appeal) seek review of the order dated 02.02.2022 passed in FA No. 92 of 2009 merely on the ground that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the question of law in its true perspective dismissed the first appeal. According to the review petitioners, while dismissing the first appeal this Court failed to appreciate the fact that the first appellate Court has not at all considered the case on its own merits. 5. On going through the order dated 02.02.2022 passed in FA No. 92 of 2009, it is manifest that after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has delivered the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed herein. 6. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioners showing any manifest error on the record and have not further brought into 3 the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 8. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 9. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish