1 2025:CGHC:53565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 353 of 2025  South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd Through The General Manager, Sohagpur Area, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus  Padam Kumar Singhania S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Singhania Aged About 60 Years R/o Opp. Railway Station, Vikrampur Road, Ward No. 15. Burhar, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh, District- Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh (Details As Were Provided In The Petitioner In The Original Petition) ... Respondent For Review Petitioner : Mr. Raja S. Pohankar, Advocate alongwith Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 3/11/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought recall/ modification of the order dated 1.7.2025 passed in WP227 No. 940 of 2018, parties being Padam Kumar Singhania Versus South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 16:38:20 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner who is seeking modification/ review of the order dated 1.7.2025 passed in WP227 No. 940 of 2018 submits that this Court allowed the writ petition and deemed it fit to set aside the order dated 18.4.2018 passed by the learned Executing Court and, consequently, remitted the case to the learned Executing Court to decide it afresh. He further submits that in the present case, the respondent himself had requested to withdraw the amount of Rs. 65,85,000/- from the learned Executing Court on 6.3.2018 which was agreed to by the review petitioner and this fact has been duly recorded in the order sheet of the learned Executing Court dated 6.3.2018, thus once the withdrawal of the amount during pendency of execution proceedings was with the agreement of the parties, the general rule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus R.S. Avtar Singh and company1 will not apply to the extent of said amount. He contends that the present review petitioner had not pointed out this crucial aspect which was already part of the record of the learned Ex- ecuting Court and it goes to the root of the case, therefore an imme- diate review of the order dated 1.7.2025 would be expedient in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the contention raised hereinabove were not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition. He contends that petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the writ petition, therefore this 1. (2013) 1 SCC 243 3 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, the agreement which has been relied on by Mr. Pohankar was not on record and this issue was not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The order impugned was passed in open Court in presence of the parties ; Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate had marked his presence for the SECL and submissions made by him were recorded verbatim, wherein there was no whisper with regard to the submissions 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 the eyes of law. The review petitionerscannot 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 4 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. 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.” 5 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 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 6 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 WP227 No. 940 of 2018. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WP227 No. 940 of 2018] was decided by this Court on 1.7.2025 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 WP227 No. 940 of 2018 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