-1- 2025:CGHC:20563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 68 of 2025 S.A Farooqui S/o Late Shri A. S Farooqui Aged About 64 Years Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, Ambedkar Chowk Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Collector, Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid Committee, Pendra, Through Secretary, Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mutwalli -Jama Masjid Committee, Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Farukh Mohammad S/o Faiz Mohammad Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Pendra, Ward No. 9, Tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - K. K. Ahmad S/o Late Mohd Hussain Aged About 65 Years R/o Behind Jama Masjid, Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.05.2025 1) The instant petition is filed for the recall of the order dated 18-04-2024 passed by this Honorable Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2024. 2) Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit as under:- A. It is submitted that respondents No. 4 and 5 filed Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2024 because they were aggrieved by the non-conduct of elections for the Mutwalli of Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid Pendra. B. It is further submitted that the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board issued a letter dated 16-04-2024 directing respondent No. 2 to conduct elections as per the election guidelines. On the basis of said letter, respondent No. 2 was directed by this Court to comply with the directions of the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board within 45 days vide order dated 18-04-2024. C. He would submit that in pursuance of order dated 18.04.2024, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to conduct the elections. However, election proceedings could not be initiated due to objections raised by members of the Jama Masjid Committee, led by contemnor No. 1. D. It is also submitted that one Md. Ayub, who is the In-Charge Mutwalli, along with other committee members, produced a copy of the Waqfnama dated 25-12-1960 regarding the Waqf property. E. The Waqfnama mentions that the Mutwalli should be appointed with the consent of all members. F. It is further submitted that considering the representation of the In- Charge Mutwalli, the Waqf Board passed a resolution on 25-01-2025 to -3- appoint the Mutwalli by mutual consensus and coordination. G. The In-Charge Mutwalli, who had submitted the application and objection, was informed about the resolution dated 25-01-2025 through a letter dated 06-02-2025. H. It is contended that at the time of hearing of the writ petition (WPC No. 694/2024), the petitioner had made submissions on the basis of letter dated 16-04-2024. Consequently, a direction was issued to the respondent No. 2 to conduct the election of Mutwalli. However, this direction is now superseded by the resolution of the Waqf Board dated 25-01-2025. Despite this, respondent No. 4 and 5 have filed a contempt case seeking compliance with the order passed in the writ petition, on the basis of letter dated 16-04-2024. This has led to the filing of the present review petition for recall of the order dated 18-04-2024. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Majumdar. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5) In WPS No.694 of 2024, vide order dated 18.04.2024, this Court, after carefully considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, passed a bi-party order, wherein, this Court directed respondent No. 3 to conduct the election of Mutwalli as per the direction issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, dated 16-04-2024, preferably within 45 days. -4- 6) 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. 7) 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." 8) Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Agrawal (supra), after referring to and discussing the relevant pronouncements on the subject, held as under:- "8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, let us regurgitate the well settled law on the scope of review as contemplated in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order XLVII of CPC. 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of 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 the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace. [M/s.Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980)2 SCC 167]. 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. [Sajjan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 845]. 11. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very pivotal observations: - -6- "9. 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 of 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 a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, (2020)2 SCC 677, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 1, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC. 14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345- 8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited & Another), this Court reiterated the law and held that: "15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning -7- on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions." 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others, (2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:- (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. -8- (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 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, 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 -9- 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, 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, 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.” -10- 15) The case (WPC/694/2024) was disposed of after taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 16) In the light of the principles of law laid down through various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for rehearing/review/recall of the order dated 18.04.2024 by way of this review petition is not permissible. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim