1 2025:CGHC:45143-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 169 of 2025 Sheela Mishra W/o Late S.K. Mishra, aged about 50 years R/o Agay Nagar, Block B / 237 Tehsil ot Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shankar Banerjee S/o Late Shukender Kumar Banerjee, aged about 70 years R/o Agay Nagar, Block B /237, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Jila Bilaspur, (C.G.) Power Of Attorney Dr. Hemant Chatterjee, age 61 years S/o Late Hariprasad Chatterjee, Residence 25 Bangla, in front of Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rent Control Authority Bilaspur, C.G. Address Collectorate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Rent Control Tribunal Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 4 .0 9 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by this Court in WP227 No. 475 of 2025, by which this Court had dismissed the said writ petition filed by the review petitioner ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 herein, on the ground that the order, which is sought to be reviewed, suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record and the said order was passed without issuing notice to the respondents and without hearing him. 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 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 3 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 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. From perusal of the order, which is sought to be reviewed, it transpires that the same has been passed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of materials available on record. It further transpires that 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/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra