IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 12 of 2025 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Bhaskar Swain ...… Petitioner -Versus- Panchu Das & Ors. .... Opposite Parties _____________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Nayak, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. P.K Rath, Sr. Advocate with P.Dash, Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 29th January, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner, who was respondent No.1 in RSA No. 369 of 2014, seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court on 22.11.2024 passed therein. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff-respondent while Opposite Party No.1 was defendant No.1-appellant in the second appeal. The other Opposite Parties, being proforma defendants were respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 3. The appeal was filed by the defendant of C.S. No. 273 of 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2009 followed by decree passed in the said suit, the defendant preferred appeal, being RFA No. 6 of 2010, which was heard and disposed of by learned Second Additional District Judge, vide judgment dated 24.04.2014. The suit was filed for decree of specific performance of contract or in the alternative, for refund of advance money. The suit was decreed directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. Said judgment and decree was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. In the further appeal carried to this Court in RSA No. 369 of 2014, by judgment passed on 22.11.2024, this Court allowed the appeal in part by modifying the impugned judgments and decree by refusing the relief of specific performance of contract but allowed the alternative relief by directing the defendant to refund the advance consideration money of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e., 28.02.2001 till actual payment. The present application has been filed seeking review of the said judgment on grounds that would be referred to later. 4. Heard Mr. S.K.Nayak, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. P.K Rath, learned Senior counsel with Ms. P.Dash, for the defendant. 5. Mr. Nayak would argue that the finding of this Court that the plaintiff belongs to the Scheduled Caste is erroneous as there are materials on record to show that he belongs to the general caste. To amplify his argument, Mr. Nayak draws attention of this Court to the finding of this Court under paragraph 14 where this Court held that the defendant No.1 Bhramar Das is not a Scheduled Caste person. Mr. Nayak submits that certain documents were marked as exhibits which show the caste of the ancestor of Bharmar Das as ‘Buna’ which is not as a Scheduled Caste. He further submits that the petitioner subsequently came to know that B. Das has sold his property to villagers as a non-schedule caste person (Buna) which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. Further, the attention of this Court could not be drawn to Section 13(c) of Specific Relief Act. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rath would argue that the review application having been filed at the instance of another lawyer is not maintainable. On merits, it is argued that the grounds cited for review are actually grounds for appeal. He further submits that as per the settled position of law, an appeal cannot be preferred in the garb of review. Mr. Rath, also argues that even otherwise, the judgment passed by this Court has since been implemented by depositing the advance money before the Executing Court, pursuant to which the execution case has also been dropped. 7. Since maintainability of the review application at the instance of another lawyer is raised, it would be proper to deal with the same at the first instance. Though it is the settled position of law that a review is not maintainable being filed by a counsel other than the one who had conducted the main proceeding, yet it is also well settled that if the original counsel has given his consent/no objection, a review application can be entertained at the instance of a new lawyer. The review application is therefore, held to be maintainable. 8. Coming to the grounds raised seeking review, law is no longer res integra that the first and foremost of requirement of entertaining a review application is that the order, review of which is sought, (a) must be suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record or (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vrs. Ram Bhai, AIR 2003 SC 2025. It is also well settled that an appeal cannot be filed in the guise of review. Having regard to the contentions raised by the review petitioner, this Court feels it proper to also refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Ray and others, AIR 1975 ORISSA 64 wherein it was held that a review cannot be entertained only on the ground that the matter could have been argued differently or that certain arguments could not be made by the counsel. 9. Viewed in the background of the proposition of law as referred above, this Court finds that the application for review falls far short of the legal requirement. This Court, considering the materials on record and the fact that the caste of the person concerned (B.Das) having been depicted differently in different documents, one of which being ‘Bouri’ which is a Scheduled Caste in Odisha, held that it cannot be conclusively held that he is not a Scheduled Caste person. The petitioner claims to have come across some further documents wherein the concerned person has depicted himself as ‘Buna’ and not ‘Bauri’. Even accepting such an argument, this Court fails to understand as to how the same improves the case of the petitioner as even then, the aforementioned finding of the Court would remain intact. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to persuade this Court to review its judgment. To state at the cost of repetition, from what has been narrated before, no case for review is made out. 10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the review application, which is, therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak