1 2025:CGHC:38956-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 207 of 2025 1 - Indrajit Singh Sahni S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni Aged About 69 Years R/o Gagan Service Center, Ring Road No.2, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant / Appellant No.1) 2 - Ganandeep Sing Sahni S/o Shri Indrajit Singh Sahni Aged About 29 Years R/o Gagan Service Center Ring Road No/2, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) (Defendat/ Appellant No.2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri V.K. Shukla S/o Late Shri Rn Shukla Aged About 64 Years R/o House No.01, Shreeji Kalpatur, Near Water Tank, Amlidih, Tehsil And District- Raipur , Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff/ Respondent) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.06 19:01:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioners are seeking review/recall of order dated 04.07.2025 passed by this Court in WP227 No. 585/2025 and also prayed that the matter be remanded back to learned Rent Control Tribunal Raipur for consideration of the appeal of the petitioners on its own merits and in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite objections raised by the petitioners neither the same was considered nor addressed by the learned Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners seek recall/review of order dated 04.07.2025, which is sought to be under review and also seeking remand of the matter to the learned Rent Control Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 4. Bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the same has been passed in presence of the counsel for the 3 parties by considering all the facts and grounds raised by the parties. The petitioner failed to establish any manifest error on the face of the order under review. 5. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re- appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja 4 (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 7. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Amardeep