1 2026:CGHC:11871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 79 of 2026 Mohd. Sikandar S/o Gulam Mustafa Aged About 43 Years R/o Main Road, Urga, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Jaibun Nisha Wd/o Late Abdul Sattar Lodhiya Aged About 64 Years R/o Rani Road, Purani Basti Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge By circulation in chamber 12.03.2026 1. The review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 02/02/2026 passed in SA No.195/2016. 2. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 3. The main ground urged in the review petition is that the facts, which were matter of record, have not been dealt with in the AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.03.12 16:38:34 +0530 2 judgment under review. It is also stated that the substantial question of law themselves were not proper. 4. Perused the review petition as also the judgment under review dated 02/02/2026 passed in SA No.195/2016. 5. From bare perusal of the judgment dated 02/02/2026, which is sought to be reviewed herein, it is manifest that this Court after hearing the parties at length reserved for judgment on 28/01/2026 and thereafter, after appreciating the entire aspects of the matter as also the respective contentions raised by both the parties, delivered the judgment on 02/02/2026 by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. The plea taken by the review petitioner in the case at hand cannot be accepted at this juncture. 6. Be that as it may, the Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore I am not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 7. 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 3 amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. The ground raised by the 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 order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep