1 2026:CGHC:5172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 23 of 2026  Vishwanath S/o Khedram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bavli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Madholal S/o Chunagram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Bavli Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Meera Ansari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30/01/2026 1. The review petitioner has filed this review petition for re-call of the judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 359 of 2003 dated 29.08.2025 inter alia on the ground that this Court failed to consider the sale-deed executed in favour of review petitioner. 2. It is pleaded that the review petitioner got possession of the land bearing survey No. 288 on 23.10.1987 and this fact was not rebutted by opposite SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.05 17:15:33 +0530 2 party. Further case of the review petitioner is that the plaintiff was under obligation to prove his case. It is pleaded that this Court failed to discuss the facts of the case properly. 3. Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate would submit that a sale-deed was executed in favour of review petitioner and possession was also handed over, therefore, there was no occasion to ignore the registered deed of transfer. He would submit that this Court while dismissing the second appeal failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that there is no mistake apparent on the face of record warranting review of the judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The plaintiff purchased total area of survey No. 288 through registered sale-deed dated 27.05.1987, thereafter, review petitioner purchased part of survey No. 288 from Sagarmal. Though no land was available to be sold by Sagarmal, but this fact was not verified by the review petitioner before execution of sale-deed. If there was any dispute between Sagarmal and Krishna Kumar, Sagarmal should have challenged the sale-deed executed by Surajmal by filing appropriate suit. 7. 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 3 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." 8. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 9. “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.” 4 9. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem 5 gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 10. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 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.” 11. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 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.” 12. Taking into consideration the fact that SA No. 359 of 2003 was decided by this Court on 29.08.2025 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 modification/recall of the order passed in SA No. 359 of 2003 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 13. Consequently, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant