1 2025:CGHC:26007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 133 of 2025  M/s Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (A-5) Through Its Managing Director Vineet Singh, S/o Late Sudhish Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Maharana Pratap Colony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S.- Rakhi, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer (Tender Cell) O/o Einc, Shivnath Bhawan North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Engineer Hasdeo Basin, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Apporva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 20.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Apporva Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2 2. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2115 of 2025, by which this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground that the order sought to be reviewed was passed by this Court without minute observation of the facts and grounds and without looking all the annexures and other supported documents which are lying in the writ petition and passed the order without fully observation and as such done the apparent mistake in looking the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Annexure-A/1 and the same should be set aside in the interest of justice so that, the review petitioner can get the relief from this Court for consideration of Material Pleas, Constitutional Violation of Article 14 and Sufficient Reason and Principles of Fair Evaluation, in the order impugned. 3. 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 3 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." 4. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, 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 4 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.” 5. The petitioner has sought rehearing of the writ petition by way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for review. 6. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti