1 2025:CGHC:21972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 114 of 2025 1 - Awadhesh Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Taraud, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.05.13 11:51:54 +0530 2 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector -Cum Authorized Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge By circulation in chamber 09.05.2025 1. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 09/04/2025 passed in WPS No.1950/2024. 2. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 3. The main ground urged in the review petition is that the deduction was made without issuing any notice and without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further ground raised by the review petitioner is that he has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation. According to the review petitioner, no recoverable liability existed against him. 4. Perused the review petition as also the order under review dated 09/04/2025 passed in WPS No.1950/2024 5. From bare perusal of the order dated 09/04/2025, it is manifest that this Court passed the detailed order after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. In the 3 said order, this Court observed that the review petitioner availed the loan from the Bank and the said loan amount was declared as NPA on 26/03/2018. This Court also observed that since there is an outstanding towards the loan amount, the respondents/Bank have rightly deducted the amount of Rs.1,18,689.67 from the account of the petitioner and as such, the same cannot be stated to be illegal and arbitrary because if a person availed the loan, he ought to have repay the same. 6. 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. 7. 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 4 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 others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. 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. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep