1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 266 of 2025 Judgment Reserved On : 27.02.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 09.04.2026. Smt. Soni Bai W/o Late Ghasiram Aged About 62 Years Caste- Panika, R/o Village Kanakpur, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Defendant No.1) ...Applicant. versus 1 - Ramanlal S/o Vishram Aged About 48 Years. 2 - Smt. Shashikala W/o Late Kalanath Aged About 35 Years. 3 - Harshit S/o Kalanath Aged About 9 Years. 4 - Siddhant S/o Kalanath Aged About 7 Years. 5 - Pushkal S/o Kalanath Aged About 5 Years. 6 - Ku. Tamanna D/o Kalanath Aged About 3 Years. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are Minors Through Natural Guardian, The Mother, Smt. Shashikala, Aged 35 Years, Wife Of Late Kalanath, all are R/o Village Gobinda, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Plaintiffs) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.13 19:51:08 +0530 2 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Defendant No.2) ... Respondents. For Applicant : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.7 : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy AG. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. in MJC case No.39/2022 which arose out of the judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.07A/2022. 2. Facts germane for disposal of this Civil Revision are that the Respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction and for rectification of sale deed. Respondents/plaintiffs prayed that they be declared owner of suit property comprised in Khasra No.54, area 1.25 acre, situated at village Kanakpur and that Defendant No.1/applicant herein be restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs/respondents over suit property. It was also prayed by the plaintiffs/respondents that Defendant No.1 be directed to rectify the above mentioned Khasra number in the sale deed dated 27.03.2002 3 (Ex.P/3) by either executing supplementary sale deed or any other mode prescribed by law. 3. It was alleged in the plaint that Ramanlal and Kalanath were brothers. Khasra No. 54 area 1.25 acre, 0.506 hectare is suit property. Kalanath on 27.3.2002 purchased suit land from Ghasidas by a registered sale-deed. In sale-deed, Khasra No. 46/2 area 1.35 acre is mentioned which is actually Khasra No. 54 area 1.25 acre. After purchase, Kalanath came into possession of the suit property and he is in continuous possession of the said property. Since due to mistake, Khasra number has wrongly been mentioned though they are in possession of the suit property as such, the suit is required to be decreed in favour of plaintiffs/respondent and requisite relief has been sought by them. The suit property was a joint property of Parwati Bai and Ghasidas and Ghasidas is the only heir of Parwati Bai. Cause of action arose on 10.5.2014. 4. The defendant submitted written-statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint stating that Khasra number which has been mentioned in the sale deed is the actual Khasra number which cannot be rectified. Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. Presently, the defendant No.1 is in possession. Possession was never delivered to the plaintiffs. Ghasidas never executed sale-deed of the suit land. Suit filed for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitation. Hence, no case is made out in favour of plaintiff/respondents for grant of any relief. 4 5. The learned trial Court (Civil Judge, Class I, Champa, District Janjgir Champa C.G.) dismissed the suit bearing Civil Suit No.A/20/2014 on 24.12.2021 while holding that plaintiff/respondents could not prove their case, against the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff/respondents preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.7A/2022 before the first appellate Court (1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, CG) which on 02.09.2022 allowed the suit of the plaintiffs and passed decree while declaring them owner in possession of suit property comprised on Khasra No.54, land measuring 1.25 acre, situated at village Kanankpur, Tahsil Champa. The present applicant/Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment dated 02.09.2022. The said application which was registered as MJC case No.39/2022 was dismissed on 23.07.2025 by First District Judge, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa while holding that Defendant No.1 is raising grounds which were not raised on earlier occasion and as such, it cannot be allowed. Assailing the said order dated 23.07.2025, this Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed by the Defendant No.1/applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the review Court is perverse, bad in law. He submits that the order impugned has been passed under review jurisdiction of the Court, against which, civil revision is maintainable as it is not appealable and appeal can only be filed against judgment and decree, however, in the present matter, 5 it is an order simpliciter by which review application has been dismissed, as such, he has filed this revision. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rahimal Bathu and Others vs. Ashiyal Beevi {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1226} in which, according to him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that against the order passed on an application for review, no appeal lies and the Section 115 CPC is maintainable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 while relying on the same judgment i.e. Rahimal Bathu (supra) has argued that against the order by which the review application has been dismissed, the applicant is not having remedy to file a revision under Section 115 of the CPC but can assail the review order along with the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court before the competent Court having jurisdiction, as such, this revision which has been filed against the review order is not at all maintainable and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the revision. 9. The Registry of this Court has also raised an objection regarding maintainability of this revision stating that against the order impugned a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable as the order impugned is appealable. 6 10.From the perusal of record, it appears that upon dismissal of civil suit, a regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffs, in which first appellate Court under Section 96 CPC has allowed the suit of the plaintiffs. Against that judgment and decree, no appeal has been preferred by the defendants. However, a review application has been filed before the original Court for reviewing of the order passed by the first appellate Court raising inter alia some new grounds which were not raised before the concerned trial Court and the same are germane for deciding the suit properly as such the review of order is warranted. 11.The Appeal under Section 96 CPC was considered by the first appellate Court and as such, the order is required to be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The trial Court i.e. First District Judge, Janjgir heard the two applications, however, while dismissing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it also dismissed review application stating that no grounds whatsoever has been raised under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to correct the error apparent on the face of record and therefore, no case is made out for review of order passed by the first appellate Court. Accordingly the review application was dismissed. 12. The question for consideration before this Court is whether against the order of dismissal of application seeking review of judgment and decree can be challenged under Section 115 of the CPC. 13.In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the parties, it would be apt to quote Section 114 of the CPC. 7 114. Review.- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 14.Order 47 Rule 1 CPC reads as under:- 1. Application for review of judgment- (1) 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 of 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. (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 applies for the review. [Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which 8 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.] 15. It is well settled that scope of review is very limited. It can be entertained if prima face it appears that order challenged suffers from clerical error. The review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. And before the review Court, it cannot be stated that the grounds which were available in the appeal can be entertained in the review jurisdiction as review jurisdiction is very limited jurisdiction. 16.In order to further appreciate the rival submissions and contentions as also the case laws which has been cited by the parties which is common, what emerges is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already considered this aspect and held in para 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 in the matter of Rahimal Bathu (supra), which is as under:- “28. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether a revision under Section 115 CPC, is maintainable against an order of the subordinate court rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit? 29. To appropriately address the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite to have an overview of the relevant provisions of CPC. An application seeking a review of a judgment and decree passed in a civil suit is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Rule 4 of Order 47 provides that where it appears to the court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provides that where the court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same. Rule 7 of Order 47 provides that an order of the court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but 9 an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. In fact, Order 43 Rule 1(w) supplements Order 47 Rule 7 by providing that an appeal would lie against an Order under Rule 4(2) of Order 47 granting an application for review. Rule 9 of Order 47 CPC provides that no application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained. 37. What is clear from the above observations is, that where the review is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified, such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated, reversed or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law. 38. But where the review petition is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition. 39. Apart from the above, there is another reason also for a Revisional Court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the Revisional Court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court's decree, the decree of the trial court would merge in the one passed by the Revisional Court. In consequence, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court's decree to file an appeal would get affected. Further, there may be a case where a person is aggrieved by a finding of the trial court on any issue, even though the trial court's decree may be in its favour. In that scenario, if there is an appeal by a party aggrieved by the decree, that person would have a right to take an objection against 10 the adverse finding with the aid of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22CPC, but in the event of there being no appeal against the decree, such a person would lose its right to take an objection, under Order 41 Rule 22CPC, against that adverse finding. 40. No doubt revisional powers may be available on limited grounds, primarily to correct jurisdictional errors, but still it is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. In Shankar Ramchandra [Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, (1969) 2 SCC 74] , this Court observed: (SCC p. 78, para 6) “6. Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts in those of superior courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal.” (emphasis supplied) 41. In the instant case, the trial court, which had jurisdiction to allow or dismiss the review application, dismissed the review application on merits. If it had granted the review, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(w) read with Order 47 Rule 7CPC. And if it had allowed the review and simultaneously altered/modified/reversed the decree, then the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal against the said decree. But, if the Revisional Court does the same, as has been done by the High Court while passing the impugned order [Ashiyal Beevi v. Rasimal Bathu, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 3890] , an anomalous situation would arise. The decree passed by the trial court would stand modified by the High Court. Therefore, if the defendant(s) against whom the decree is passed were to challenge the same, they would be at a disadvantage 11 on account of the merger. Whereas, from the standpoint of the respondent-plaintiff, even if we assume that the trial court's decree is inconsistent with its finding on the validity of the gift in favour of Khaja Mohideen, she can challenge the same in an appeal against the decree even after rejection of the review application. In the event of such an appeal by the plaintiff, the defendant(s), even if they had themselves not filed an appeal against the trial court's decree, would have a right to take objection to the adverse finding(s) under Order 41 Rule 22CPC. However, if the Revisional Court's order is allowed to stand, owing to modification of the decree by the Revisional Court, to which in normal course an appeal would lie, the right of an appeal to the aggrieved party would get seriously prejudiced. 42. For all the reasons above, we are of the considered view that where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits, is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed. 43. In view of our conclusion above, the revision of the respondent against rejection of her application for review of an appealable decree ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order [Ashiyal Beevi v. Rasimal Bathu, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 3890] of the High Court is set aside.” 17. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rahimal Bathu (supra), it is quite vivid that the appellate Court had passed a judgment against which a review application was filed for reviewing the judgment passed by the appellate Court which was rejected on merits and as such, 12 rejection of review application would amount to confirmation of appellate judgment, therefore, against dismissal of review application, the only remedy available under the law is to file appeal and as such, the present Revision which has been filed against the rejection of review application is not maintainable and accordingly the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 27.02.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.04.2026