1 2025:CGHC:27669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 182 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secrertary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rachana Singh W/o Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha Aged About 39 Years Address C/o Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, D.C.Roadd, Collector Niwas, Ambikapur (Sarguja) Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anand Shukla & Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “ It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to review / recall / 2 modify the order dated 08/09/2023 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed in REVP No. 16 OF 2021; “Rachana Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr..”, in the ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit in the facts & circumstance of the case. “ 2. Registry of this Court has raised an objection that as per provisions contained in Rule 9 of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, review petition could not be filed against any order passed in review petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / State would submit that instant review has been filed in pursuance of the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 502 of 2023 (Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another). 4. When specific question posed to petitioner’s counsel that whether any liberty was granted to the petitioner to file instant review petition, then he submits that no specific liberty has been granted vide order dated 27.06.2024 to file such review petition. 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Order 47, Rule 9 of the CPC, which reads as under :- “Order XLVII, Rule 9 of the CPC 9. Bar of certain application. - 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.” 6. Perusal of aforesaid provision specifically shows that review application could not be filed to review any order passed in any review application. Therefore, objection raised by the Registry is found to be just & proper. 3 7. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. [ See Lily Thomas and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 ] 8. In view of the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 9 of the CPC and the law laid down by the supreme Court in aforesaid case, objection raised by the Registry is found to be approprate, therefore, review petition is dismissed in view of provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 9 of the CPC and the objection raised by the Registry is hereby upheld. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.03 10:54:44 +0530