1 2025:CGHC:61130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 397 of 2025 Maroti Rao S/o Madhukar Londe Aged About 57 Years (Now) R/o Amar Band, Faishta Complex And Chhitarmal Kahndelwal, Infront Of Dharmshala, Moti Para, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Shyam Sunder Khandelwal S/o Late Pyabhudayal Khandelwal Aged About 69 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 16.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for recalling the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court in SA No. 282 of 2021. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condondation of delay. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application (IA No.01/2025), the same is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 4. The review petitioner seeks recalling of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court in SA No. 282 of 2021 wherein this Court has BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.12.16 17:18:45 +0530 2 disposed of the said appeal in terms of understanding arrived at between the parties. 5. On going through the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in SA No. 282 of 2021, it is manifest that after hearing learned counsel for all the parties and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has passed the order which is sought to be reviewed herein. 6. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and have not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 8. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner 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. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kearla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 3 9. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika