1 2025:CGHC:51547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 336 of 2025  Indri Devi (Died) Through Lrs. Namely Ramnarayan Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramdas Gupta Aged About 76 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station And Tehsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village And Post Davara, Police Station Pasta, Tehsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Balrampur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Tehsildar Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16/10/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought recall/ modification of the order dated 28.1.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 737 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.17 10:57:50 +0530 2 of 2019, parties being Vijay Narayan Gupta and Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the present review petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner who is seeking modification/ review of the order dated 28.1.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 737 of 2019 submits that this Court dismissed the writ pe- tition on the ground that subject land i.e. Khasra No. 439/2 is recorded as forest land. He has referred the documents annexed along with the return in the writ petition filed by the State wherein Khasra No. 439/2 is recorded as barren land. He further submits that Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj while passing the order dated 6.2.2019 recorded a finding that Khasra No. 439/2 is recorded as for- est land in the revenue records of years 1981 to 1986 and in Column No. 12, the name of Ashok S/o Mangli Sao is registered as en- croacher. He contends that though a report was called by the con- cerned Collector but it was not submitted and order was passed, thus the authority concerned failed to consider the revenue documents of years 1981-86 and passed the order. He further contends that rev- enue record of years 1981-86 was part of the return filed by the State in writ petition but the respective counsel appearing for the parties could not point out the illegality committed by Collector, Balrampur- Ramanujganj and this very issue goes to the root of the case, there- fore an immediate review of the order dated 28.1.2025 would be ex- pedient in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the contention 3 raised hereinabove were not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition. He further submits that Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that in the revenue records, Khasra No. 439/2 is recorded as forest land, therefore lease could not have been granted to petitioners. He contends that review petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the 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. Admittedly, Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in its order dated 6.2.2019 has recorded a finding that Khasra No. 439/2 is forest land. Mr. Paranjpe has brought to the notice of this Court the revenue records pertaining to years 1981-86 wherein Khasra No. 439/2 is recorded as Barren Land. This document was part of the return filed by State in the writ petition but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by respective counsel appearing for the parties in the writ petition. This Court considering all the aspects of the matter, dismissed the writ petition. Further, the order impugned was passed in open Court in presence of the parties ; Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate marked his presence for the petitioners and submissions made by him have been recorded verbatim, wherein there was no whisper with regard to the pleadings made herein above. 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 4 the eyes of law. The review petitioner 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 (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. 5 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 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 6 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 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 review petitioner has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 737 of 2019. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be 7 misconceived. Further, the case [WP(C) No. 737 of 2019] was decided by this Court on 28.1.2025 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 WP(C) No. 737 of 2019 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