1 REVP No. 139 of 2024 2025:CGHC:42601-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 139 of 2024 1. Daya Sagar Mishra S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 50 Years, R/o in front of Anathalay, Raigarh, Tahsil, and Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Surinder Kour, W/o Late Shri Swaroop Singh Khurana, Aged About 58 Years, Profession- House Wife, R/o Kirodimal Colony, Raigarh, Tah. and Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh, at Present R/o Lalu Ram Colony, Adarsh Vihar, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tah. and Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh). 2. Rajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Swaroop Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 3. Nitish Kumar, S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4. Saroj Devi Agrawal W/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 17:02:28 +0530 2 REVP No. 139 of 2024 5. Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Sant Lal Agrawal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Kotra Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. Krishna Devi Agrawal W/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal, aged about 57 Years, R/o Kotra Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Raigarh Collector Office, Raigarh ( C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Ms. Payal Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 :- Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.7 :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board (22.08.2025) Sachin Singh Rajput, J 1. The petitioner/defendant No.6 has preferred this Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for reviewing the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 3 REVP No. 139 of 2024 passed by this Court in FA No.315/2018 in the matter of Smt. Surinder Kour v. Rajendra Singh and others. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.6 would submit that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review and, therefore, judgment and decree under review deserves to be recalled and the appeal be heard afresh and order be passed accordingly. 3. Learned counsels for the respondents would submit that against the judgment dated 05.05.2023 passed in FA No.315/2018, Nitish Kumar Agrawal along with Saroj Devi Agrawal, Suresh Agrawal and Krishna Devi Agrawal and also Rajendra Singh have preferred two SLPs which were registered as SLA(C) No. 23382/2023 & SLP(C) No.30769/2023, respectively, are dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25.01.2024, therefore, the instant review petition is also liable to be dismissed as there is no error in the judgment passed by this Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above 4 REVP No. 139 of 2024 and gone though the records and the annexed documents. 5. After going through the records of the review petition and the documents annexed therewith and also the order under review, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of judgment dated 05.05.2018 passed by this Court in FA No.315/2018 by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Furthermore, the review petition has been preferred for reviewing the judgment dated 05.05.2018 passed by this Court in FA No.315/2018 on merits by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC which is not permissible in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others 1 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. 1 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 REVP No. 139 of 2024 6. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine finding no sufficient cause for reviewing of the order under review. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ankit