1 2025:CGHC:11282-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 44 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Sharma (In Person) S/o Shri Dev Kumar Sharma Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. (In Writ Petition Mentioned As Aged About 39 Years, Currently Working Computer Operator (Collector Rate) In Nagar Panchayat Adbhar, R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Adbhar Thana Malkharowda, Tahsil Malkharowda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Mobile No. 9303156311) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretory Dept. of Urban Administration and Development Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Urban Admin. and Development, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration Department, Bilaspur Nehru Complex B.D.A. Building, Old R.T.O. Office Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur. 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Adhbhar District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nagar Panchayat Adhbhar District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Satyanarayan Dewangan S/o Chaitanya Singh Aged About 45 Years (Presently Posted As Chief Municipal Officer (In-Charge), Nagar Panchayat Kharoud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (In Writ ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.10 10:28:34 +0530 2 Appeal Mentioned As Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat Adbhar, Thana And Tahsil Malkharouda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma in person For respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 07.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, review petitioner in person as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 732 of 2024. 3. From perusal of the order sought to be reviewed and the materials available on record, it is apparent that while deciding Writ Appeal No. 732 of 2024 which was filed on behalf of the appellant by his counsel, Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, he was heard at length and on the basis of materials available on record and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the said writ appeal was disposed of by this Court vide order sought to be reviewed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for promotional avenues for the 3 post of Revenue Sub-Inspector above the respondent No.6, in accordance with law. But, the instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner in person and not by his earlier counsel. 4. On a pointed query being made to the petitioner, who is appearing in person, as to why the review petition has filed by him and not by his earlier counsel, he does not give any satisfactory explanation in this regard. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, has deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: "1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary 4 to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on- Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained ''No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on- Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the ''No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate- 5 on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the ''No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition." 6. The observation made in N. Raju Reddiar (supra) has been further relied upon by the Allahabad High Court in the recent judgment in the matter of Jai Singh vs The State of U.P. through its Principal decided on 13 April, 2023 in Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. - 5 of 2022. 7. In the present case also, earlier the review petitioner had initially engaged Shri Pawan Kumar Shrivastava as his counsel, who was heard at length while passing the order sought to be challenged which was passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record. 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 allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, 6 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 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 7 allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 10. It transpires that the petitioner has sought rehearing of the writ appeal by way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for review. 11. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra