1 / 4 2025:CGHC:41008-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 215 of 2025 Upendra Nath Chandra (In Person) S/o Bhagwat Prasad Chandra Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kataud, P.S. Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union Of India Through Central Registrar Of Cooperative Society Ministry Of Cooperation 900, 9th Floor, Tower E, Word Trade Center Narouji Nagar, New Delhi- 110029 3 - Reserve Bank Of India Subhashish Parisar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Prem Vihar Daganiya, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.18 17:49:55 +0530 2 / 4 Petitioner in person : Mr. Upendra Nath Chandra For Respondent No. 1/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Singha, Chief Justice 14/08/2025 1. By the present review petition the review petitioner (petitioner in WPPIL) seeks review of the judgment dated 23.07.2025 rendered by this court in WPPIL No. 64 of 2025 which has been dismissed by this court. 2. The review petitioner preferred the present petition merely on the ground that while hearing WPPIL this Court has not considered the important documents placed by him. He further raised a ground that millions of rupees are being embezzled every day and hundreds of lives are being wasted every day. By way of this petition the petitioner wants to re-argue the matter afresh despite the fact the order, which is under review, has been passed in presence of all the parties. 3. From bare perusal of the order passed in the WPPIL, which is sought to be reviewed herein, it is apparent that this Court has dismissed the PIL on the basis that the petition is vague and 3 / 4 sketchy and further from own showing of the petitioner, it appears to be personal interest of the petitioner as he was an employee of ESAF Swasraya Multistate Agro Corporation Society Ltd. 4. The Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow 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. 5. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the review petitioners have not produced any ground for review. 6. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the Review Petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal 4 / 4 Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 7. Accordingly, the Review Petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) ( RAMESH SINHA ) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti