1 / 5 2026:CGHC:19754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 116 of 2026 1 - Abhishek Agarwal S/o Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Akalwara Tahsil Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Rekha Agarwal S/o Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Akalwara Tahsil Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Megha Agarwal D/o0 Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Akalwara Tahsil Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Barkha Agarwal D/o Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Akalwara Tahsil Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue Through Its President, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner (Revenue) Durg Division, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sub- Divisional Officer Saja, District - Bemetra (C.G.) 2 / 5 5 - Naib- Tahsildar Saja, District - Bemetra (C.G.) 6 - Raj Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Murli Dhar Agarwal Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Akalwara Saja, District- Bemetra (C.G.) 7 - Smt Shashi Bai W/o Late Shri Satya Kumar Agarwal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Akalwara Saja, District- Bemetra (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate For State : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. Heard on IA No. 01 which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioners were suffering from some serious medical ailment, IA No. 01 is hereby allowed. 3. Delay in filing of this review petition is condoned. 4. The case is heard on merits. 5. Petitioners have filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 25.07.2024 passed in a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3689 of 2024. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there was an interim order passed by Sub Divisional Officer in an appeal on 22.05.2020 and, further submitted that in the second appeal preferred by petitioners i.e. SA No. 345 of 2020 Interim order was passed in their favor ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.05.05 11:57:54 +0530 3 / 5 “ meanwhile name of applicant in revenue record if any shall not be deleted til the next date of hearing”. 7. The aforementioned important fact escaped consideration. 8. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh wherein Board of Revenue had upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, subject matter of challenge therein. Contents of the order would show that the Commissioner considering that the cases were also contested by the parties in Civil Court and appeal of which is pending in High Court, the order to be passed by High Court in pending appeal would be binding upon the revenue Courts as held that it will not be appropriate in law to decide the issue placed before him in merits. 9. In the writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to record the name of petitioners as Bhumi Swami along with the respondent no. 6 in revenue records. While disposing the writ petition this Court have considered that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court Tehsildar has passed the order deleting the name of petitioners vide its order dated 19.05.2020 whereas interim order passed in second appeal bearing SA No. 345 of 2020 as dated 15.07.2020. 10. The arguments raised and considered in writ petition cannot be permitted to re-argue the entire case afresh as held by Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 in para no. 10 as under:- 4 / 5 “10........A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.” 11. The final order of the case based on the arguments raised earlier also can be considered/challenged only by way of an appeal and not in a review application. 12. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors . reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus: “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 13. The review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and substitute a different view merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has held as under: “8. It is well settled 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 XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court 5 / 5 from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it…….” 14. Considering the grounds raised by applicant in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioner failed to make out a ground warranting review of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in WPC no. 3689 of 2024. 15. Accordingly, review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza