1 2025:CGHC:24200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 139 of 2025  Director, Survey Of India Mukut Nagar, Idgahbhata, Near Water Tank, P.S. Amapara, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  P. Hemsunder S/o P. Lachhaiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind Ravishankar Shukla University, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Gupta, 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 11.04.2025 passed in WPL No. 57 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and review–petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lump-sum to the respondent within period of 90 days. 2 2. Learned counsel for the review–petitioner who is seeking modifica- tion/ review of the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in WPL No. 57 of 2014 submits that in order to obtain favourable orders from this Court, respondent has misrepresented his case as he was engaged on daily wages basis for Mali work from the year 1983 to 2003 inter- mittently. He used to work only 1-2 hours in a week and was never recruited through Employment Exchange and he does not fulfill the conditions of “casual labour”. He further submits that there was no sanctioned post of Mali in the office so the respondent has no right for regularization of his services and any benefit arising thereof. He contends that respondent was engaged on daily wages basis and never worked more than 240 days in a calender year, thus there is no question of retrenchment under the ID Act. He argues that on the basis of false and misleading statements, respondent has obtained a favourable order from this Court, therefore, an immediate review of the order dated 11.04.2025 would be expedient in the interest of jus- tice, otherwise, review – petitioner will incur huge financial loss. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the contention raised hereinabove was not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 5. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature 3 of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review–petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 6. 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. 7. 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, 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 4 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." 8. 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.” 9. 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 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.” 10. 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 1. (1980) 2 SCC 167 2. AIR 1965 SC 845 3. (1997) 8 SCC 715 5 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.” 11. 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.” 12. 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.” 13. 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 4. (2020) 2 SCC 677 5. ( 2021) 3 SCC 1 6. AIR 1960 SC 137 6 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.” 14. In the present review petition, the review–petitioner has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WPL No. 57 of 2014. The prayer made by the review–petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPL No. 57 of 2014] was decided by this Court on 11.04.2025 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 WPL No. 57 of 2014 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 15. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.17 17:13:06 +0530