1 2025:CGHC:46108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 275 of 2025 1. Stephan Toppo S/o Buchu Toppo Aged About 45 Years R/o- Vill- Ghaghra, Tahsil And Dist.- Jashpurnagar (C.G.) (Petitioner No 1 And 2 Respectively In) 2. Prakash Toppo S/o Buchu Toppo Aged About 48 Years R/o Bundauli Colony Datiya, Tahsil And District Datiya (M.P.) (Impugned Writ Petition) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Gopal Prasad Sharma S/o Late Govind Narayan Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o- Vivekanand Colony, Tahsil And Dist- Jashpurnagar (C.G.) (Respondent In Impugned Writ Petition) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioners : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioners have sought recall/ modification of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in WP227 No. 208 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the review petitioners was dismissed. 2 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners who are seeking modifica- tion/ review of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in WP227 No. 208 of 2025 submits that the during the course of hearing of the writ peti- tion, this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025, directed the State coun- sel to call for a report from the concerned Tehsildar with regard to availability of an alternative path. He further submits that respondent/ plaintiff submitted a covering memo along with a report of Tehsildar, Manora dated 11.03.2025 and boundary map but the said report of Tehsildar was nothing than mouth piece version of plaintiff and same was prepared behind the back of review petitioners/ defendants. He contends that this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025, dismissed the petition substantively relying on the report of Tehsildar, Manora dated 11.03.2025 and the boundary map annexed to it which was a completely false, fabricated and forged document, therefore, an im- mediate review of the order dated 04.07.2025 would be expedient in the interest of justice. He argues that this fact could not be brought before this Court when the writ petition was being argued and subse- quently dismissed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff submit that the contention raised hereinabove were not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/ documents available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record of writ petition would indicate that in 3 compliance of order passed by this Court dated 05.03.2025, respondent-State filed a report of Tehsildar, Manora along with a boundary map regarding availability of alternative path wherein it was stated that plaintiff/ respondent had no alternative path. Evidently, the said report was filed on 18.03.2025 whereas the order impugned was passed on 04.07.2025. Thus, petitioner herein had ample time to contradict the said report but neither any pleading nor any document was placed on record to disprove the said report. 6. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review petitioners cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 7. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 8. 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 4 (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 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." 9. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 5 that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 11. 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.” 12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger 6 Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 14. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 15. In the present review petition, the petitioners have prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WP227 No. 208 of 2025. The prayer made by the review petitioners appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WP227 No. 208 of 2025] was decided by this Court on 04.07.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WP227 No. 208 of 2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 16. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.16 16:06:40 +0530