1 2025:CGHC:56786-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 186 of 2024 Tejram @ Satish Jayaswal S/o Late Medini Jayaswal, aged about 46 years, R/o Village Bhaisma, P.S. Urga, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus Smt. Anjana @ Anju Jayaswal W/o Tejram @ Satish Jayaswal, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Bhaisma, at present Resident of near Gol Bazar, Vivekanand Nagar Mungeli, P.S. Tahsil & District Mungeli (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant. For Applicant : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : None. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 21.11.2025 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court dated Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 13.06.2024 in First Appeal (M) No. 254 of 2018. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3. Upon due consideration and the reasons assigned therein, the application (I.A. No. 01/2024) is allowed and the delay of 32 days is hereby condoned. 4. In the review petition, various grounds have been raised assailing correctness of the finding recorded by this Court. The grounds do not make out any case for review and the review petition appears to be more in nature of an appeal in disguise. 5. 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 (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. 6. The grounds 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 3 review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge U.K. Raju