1 2025:CGHC:24201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 123 of 2025  Rahul Infrastructures Through Rahul Kumar Malviya S/o Shri Jugul Kishore Malviya Aged 39 Years, R/o A-114, Shankracharya Flower City, Bagmugaliya, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Antim Rai W/o Shri Rajendra Rai Prop, Tech Solution, C/o Rakhi Lal Sahu, Near Punjab National Bank, Village Madwa (Bhatapara), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh, 495668 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Suhas Mehar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16/06/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review–petitioner has sought recall/modification of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in WP227 No. 240 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel for the review–petitioner submits that earlier WP227 No. 240 of 2025 was filed by the review–petitioner challenging the 2 order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the review– petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of revision petition on technical grounds without considering the merits of case. He further submits that during the course of hearing, on a pointed query being raised by this Hon’ble Court regarding maintainability of revision before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, correct submission could not be made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the review–petitioner and the petition was withdrawn because the entire records of the District Commission were not available with the petitioner due to ex-parte proceedings. He contends that present is a case where jurisdictional error has been committed by the District Consumer Commission which ought to have been considered in the Revision Petition by the State Commissioner but same was dismissed on the ground of limitation rather than being heard on merits. He prays for an immediate review of the order dated 21.03.2025 as the same would be expedient in the interest of justice with direction to the State Commission to restore the Revision Petition and allow the review–petitioner to adduce additional evidence, if necessary. 3. Heard. 4. Firstly, WP227 No. 240 of 2025 was listed on 21.03.2025 wherein a pointed query regarding maintainability of the revision before the State Commission was raised and when the counsel appearing 3 therein could not give appropriate answer, he prayed for and was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Secondly, the order impugned was passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 01.01.2025. Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 expressly provides for a provision of appeal before the National Comission against the order passed by the State Commission. 5. Vide order dated 21.03.2025, WP 227 No. 240 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. It appears that petitioner has again approached this Court bypassing the statutory remedy available to him. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 6. 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 4 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." 7. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 9. “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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 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 5 disguise.” 8. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere 6 looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 9. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 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.” 10. 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.” 11. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WP227 No. 240 of 2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be 7 misconceived. Further, the case [WP227 No. 240 of 2025] was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law and petitioner has again approached this Court without availing the statutory alternative remedy ; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WP227 No. 240 of 2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 12. Consequently, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.17 11:12:22 +0530