IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 17 of 2025 ---- 1. Parveen Thakur @ Praveen Thakur son of Late Ruplal Thakur @ Ruplal Hazam, resident of Ward No.3, Thakur Tola, Chalkari, PO Chalkari Basti, PS Petarwar, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). 2. Roshna Devi wife of late Ruplal Thakur @ Ruplal Hazam, resident of Ward No.3, Thakur Tola, Chalkari, PO Chalkari Basti, P.S. Petarwar, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). … Petitioners -versus- 1. Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., having Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., having Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate ---- 02/ 28.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Petitioners, through this Civil Review Application, seek review of the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.2491 of 2023, by which the said writ petition was disposed of with observation that “for similar relief petitioner has preferred a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction which is still pending, and as such, there cannot be two parallel proceedings, one before the High Court and another before the Civil Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer for review, argued that the petitioners are not the plaintiff in the suit. He also referred to Annexure 9 to this Civil Review Application and contended that in similar matter, different order has been passed by the authority. He further submitted that for payment of death-cum-retiral dues, the deceased employee had nominated the mother of the petitioners in PS-4 Form, to receive the outstanding benefits on his death in service. On these grounds, the petitioners have sought for review of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2491 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently -: 1 :- opposes the prayer of the petitioners for review of the order and submits that the petitioners have failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record so as to seek review of the order. She submits that, this civil review application is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 5. Though it is apparent that the petitioners are not plaintiff in the suit before the Civil Court, still they are defendants in the said suit. The issue involved in the civil suit is similar as was being agitated before the Writ Court. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. versus Assam SEB reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 6. In the case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya versus Integrated Sales Service Ltd. reported in (2023) 8 SCC 11, at paragraph 35 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.” 7. Weighing the present case in the light of the observations and guidelines set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, I find that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out any case for review of the order passed in the writ petition. The only ground which the petitioners are emphasizing for seeking review of the order before this Court is that the petitioners are not the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. Even if the petitioners are not plaintiff in the civil suit, they are defendants there and the petitioners have failed to show that the issue involved in the Civil Suit is different than that of -: 2 :- the issue which was sought to be agitated by the petitioners before the Writ Court. 8. In view of what has been held and observed above, I find no merit in this Civil Review Application. This Civil Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02 AFR -: 3 :-