1 2025:CGHC:24199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 141 of 2025 1 - Tobha Bai W/o Chaitan Aged About 53 Years Caste Mahkul, R/o Village Lota, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Respondent No. 3 In S A No. 151/2012) 2 - Basanti @ Draupadi W/o Leeladhar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Budhadand, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Respondent No. 4 In S A No. 151/2012) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Naresh Chandra S/o Chaitan Ram R/o Village Lota, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Appellant In S A No. 151/2012) 2 - Madan Ram (Now Dead Through Lrs) S/o Mathura Ram Aged About 55 Years Nill 2.1 - Khemwati Bai W/o Khageshwar, S/o Madan Aged About 35 Years Caste Mahakul, R/o Village Lota, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Respondent 1 (B) In S A No. 151/2012) 2.2 - Nandani Bal W/o Mahesh, S/o Madan Caste Mahakul, R/o Village Lota, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Respondent 1 (C) In S A No. 151/2012) 2 3 - Kamla Bai W/o Vallabh Aged About 35 Years Caste Mahkul, R/o Village Sarabhkombo, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. (Respondent No. 5 In S A No. 151/2012) 4 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2 In S A No.- 151/2012) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16/06/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review–petitioners have sought recall/ modification of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in SA No. 151 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was allowed and it was held that the Vyavasthapatra dated 30.06.1986 was a gift-deed and not settlement-deed. 2. Learned counsel for the review–petitioners/ defendants No. 3 and 4 who are seeking modification/ review of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed in SA No. 151 of 2012 submit that being aggrieved by the im- pugned order dated 29.11.2023, the review–petitioners preferred SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59490 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which an application for taking additional document i.e. An- nexure P/3 [copy of sale–deed dated 03.06.1952] on record was also filed. The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file re- view petition vide order dated 03.02.2025. He further submits that 3 aforesaid document is an important evidence which despite due dili- gence could not be produced by the review–petitioners when decree was passed. He contends that if it is established that the suit prop- erty was not self–acquired property of Mathura Ram and in fact was joint family property, then the execution of the gift-deed would not create any right in favor of the respondent No. 1 herein and would ul- timately result in reversal of the judgment and decree passed by this Hon’ble Court. He prays that immediate review of the order dated 29.11.2023 would be expedient in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the contention raised hereinabove was not raised at the time of hearing of the second appeal, therefore, this review–petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is quit vivid that earlier SA No. 151 of 2012 was allowed and against that judgment and decree, respondents No. 2(a) and (b)/ LRs of defendants No. 1 preferred SLP No. 1862 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2024. Thereafter, respondents No. 2(a) and (b) preferred REVP No. 197 of 2024 before this Court and same was also dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2024. Subsequently, present review–petitioners/ defendants No. 3 and 4 preferred SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59490 of 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review petition before this Court vide 4 order dated 03.02.2025. Now, present review–petitioners have approached this Court by filing this review petition making a prayer that copy of the sale-deed dated 03.06.1952 could not be exhibited at the time of hearing the second appeal. 6. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the original appeal is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the SLP and Review Petition filed by the co-defendants have already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court respectively. Now, again other defendants have filed this review petition taking the same plea. 7. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. 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. 8. 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 Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, 5 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." 9. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the 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 counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court 1. (1980) 2 SCC 167 2. AIR 1965 SC 845 6 merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 11. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “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 disguise.” 12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board 4 , 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.” 13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy 5 , 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.” 3. (1997) 8 SCC 715 4. (2020) 2 SCC 677 5. ( 2021) 3 SCC 1 7 14. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa 6 reported in, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 15. In the present review petition, the review–petitioners have prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in SA No. 151 of 2012. The prayer made by the review–petitioners appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [SA No. 151 of 2012] was decided by this Court on 29.11.2023 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; 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 SA No. 151 of 2012 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 16. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya 6. AIR 1960 SC 137 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.18 14:12:52 +0530