1 2025:CGHC:11329-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 48 of 2025 1 - H.R. Yadav (Petitioner In Person) Nil ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs New Delhi 110001 2 - G.M. H.S.C.L Bhilai Teh. And District Durg (C.G.) 490001 3 - C.M.D.H.S.C. L. Kolkata 700031 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. R. Yadav petitioner in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishab Deo Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board On 07.03.2025 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 21/01/2025 passed by this Court in writ appeal No. 390/2023 by which this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the review petitioner. 2. The review petitioner who was working with the respondent/ department, voluntarily retired on 13.07.2003 under the voluntarily retirement scheme and when the retiral dues was not paid to him, he approached this Court by filing 2 a writ petition No. 02/2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 28/04/2005 and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were directed to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner, the writ appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 & 3 before this Court and SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court were dismissed, the petitioner again filed another WP(S) No. 494/2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 28/01/2015 with the direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and the petitioner was also directed to vacate the government premises to which the petitioner submitted his representation on 13.02.2015 before the respondent authorities but the same was not decided and he filed a contempt petition which was also dismissed on 07/07/2017, thereafter the petitioner again filed another WPS No. 5714/2017 with the prayer that the earlier order passed by this Court have not been complied with and the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 16,02,511.36/- along with the interest @ 12% per annum. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 23.10.2018 against which another writ appeal No. 794/2018 was filed which too have been dismissed vide order dated 05/12/2018. Ultimately, the petitioner again filed another WPS No. 1062/2019 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the respondent/ department have not been challenged and the same attains its finality and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and subsequently, the writ appeal has also been dismissed. In which the review petitioner seeking review of the said order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court. 3. The petitioner in person would submit that the petitioner was being harassed by the respondent/ department, he himself has intimated the respondent department to take the possession of the government quarter but they have not taken back. The false report has been lodged by the respondents against the petitioner which was decided on 16.10.2024 after about 18 years of its institution. He would further submit that he has already handed over the government quarter to the respondent/ department and still his 30th months 3 salary is outstanding which has not been paid till date. The ex gratia amount @ 59% have also not been paid to him. Earlier, opportunity of hearing have not provided to the petitioner and without hearing him, the orders have been passed, therefore, the order dated 21.01.2025 may be reviewed. 4. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record. 5. 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 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." 6. 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 4 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." 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.11 16:30:58 +0530