1 2025:CGHC:525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 268 of 2024 Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Shiv Kumar Nagar Retired Supervisor, Behind F.C.I. Colony, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. The applicant has filed instant review petition seeking review of Order dated 04.10.2024 passed by this Court in WP(227) No.175/2024, whereby while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has passed the following order in Paras 5, 6 & 7, which are reproduced as under:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that not only first appeal was filed by the petitioner after huge delay, but second appeal was also filed after delay of more than one month and cause shown by the petitioner for the said delay is not found to be sufficient. 6. Further, issue involved in the instant case is with regard to payment of retiral dues to the respondent. When specific BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.07 10:12:57 +0530 2 question was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether retiral dues, as has been ordered by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society vide Annexure P-2, has been paid or not, then he submits that does not know about the said fact. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that case pertains to the payment of retiral dues to the respondent/employee, who is said to be retired from service in the year 2010, despite that it seems that said retiral dues has not been paid to him, hence, considering the totality of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in para 5 of the impugned order, this Court has made observation that cause shown by the applicant for the said delay is not found to be sufficient. In this regard, it is stated that order passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur was not immediately communicated to the applicant and when they came to know about passing of said order, they obtained certified copy of the same and thereafter appeal was filed. The entire exercise took some time for the applicant to file appeal, therefore, there was some delay in filing the appeal, which is bonafide. In this regard, learned counsel has place reliance in the matters of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online 1878 and Pathpati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC Online SC 513. He would further submit that in para 7 of the impugned order, this Court made observation that retiral dues has not been paid to the respondent. In this regard it is stated that the entire retiral dues has been paid to the respondent in the year 2011 itself as he has already obtained gratuity amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the applicant after retirement and there is no other retiral dues to be paid to the respondent. 3 Hence, it is prayed that considering the above facts, instant review petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order submits that the respondent has not received any retiral dues till date. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the order, which has been sought for review along with record of the case. It appears that the applicant by filing this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merit and to consider new documents (Annexure A/6 to A/8) i.e. note sheets of the Bank and Bank statement, under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 5. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the applicant 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. 6. 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.” 4 7. 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.” 8. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors has laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake 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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, it is further held that exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 9. Applying the aforesaid principle and considering the reasons assigned in the application for review, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 10. In the result, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini 5