1 2025:CGHC:53514-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 352 of 2025 Anil Sinha S/o T.R. Sinha Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As Deputy Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Appellant) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary Law and Legislative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Non-Applicant) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.11 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.03 18:33:22 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment to place certain documents on record. However, the request is declined, as the present review petition has been filed without annexing the very documents upon which the petitioner now seeks to rely. This clearly indicates that the review petition has been filed in a casual and careless manner. Had there been any seriousness on the part of the petitioner, the relevant documents ought to have been filed along with the petition itself. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment on this ground is rejected, and the Court proceeds to hear the matter finally. 3. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 671 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by this Court in WA No. 671 of 2025 suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, deserves to be reviewed. He submits that the petitioner had framed three substantial questions of law before the learned Single Judge, which were not dealt with in the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in WPS No. 4850 of 2021. Aggrieved by the dismissal of that writ petition, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ appeal. However, it is contended that this Court, while deciding the writ appeal, also failed to appreciate and consider those questions of law. 3 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in the writ appeal does not contain any discussion on the important questions and issues raised by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 7240 of 2018, decided on 26.07.2018, wherein it was held that the Court must frame necessary issues or points for determination and render findings thereon with reasons. It is contended that, although the order dated 11.09.2025 refers to the framing of specific issues, no such issues were actually framed or dealt with in detail. 6. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the review petition be allowed, and the judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed in WA No. 671 of 2025 be recalled/reviewed in the interest of justice. 7. We have perused the impugned order under review. 8. In the garb of the present review petition, the petitioner has sought to re-agitate the issues and re-argue the matter afresh on the basis of subsequent developments. Such an attempt is beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 9. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of 4 appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 10. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692