1 2025:CGHC:19805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 104 of 2025 1 - Ramashankar Gupta S/o Late Hajari Lal Gupta Aged About 73 Years Occupation Social Activist (Earlier President Chhattisgarh Citizen Initiative) (Regd.) R/o Ghandhi Chowk Manendragarh District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) (Intevener) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pramod Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Manendragarh Police Station Manendragarh Tahsil Manendragarh District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri (Petitioner) 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Through Secretary Board Of Revenue Bilaspur (C .G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.05.02 16:25:44 +0530 2 Department Of Revenue Mantralaya Capital Complex Naya Raipur Police Station Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur (C.G.) 5 - The Collector District -Manendragarh- Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) (Earlier District - Koriya Baikunthpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Smt. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. For State/respondent : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The review petitioner (intervener in WPC No. 1700/15) seeks review of the order dated 24.11.2024 passed in the said writ petition on the ground that the petition has been allowed without affording due opportunity of hearing to him. 2. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order dated 14.11.2024 and would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant the invocation of review jurisdiction. 3. Heard the review petitioner and the respondents and also perused the order under Review. 3 4. From bare perusal of the order dated 14.11.2024, passed in WPC No. 1700/15, it is manifest that this Court passed the detailed order after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. 5. The Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore I am not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and 4 others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 7. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib