1 2026:CGHC:22136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 324 of 2025 Anand Ram Sahu S/o Late Kishan Lal Sahu Aged About 73 Years R/o Infront Of Sindhi School Gali, Indira Gandhi Ward No. 27, Joharapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar Firms And Society, Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhavan, Block-1, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Registrar Firms And Society, Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhavan, Block-1, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Coordination Committee Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh Office Situated At Bhamashah Hospital, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Dr. Nirendra Sahu State Coordinator, Shri Bhamashah Hostel, Sahu Complex, Tikrapara, Raipur C.G. 6 - Steering Committee Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh, Office Situated At Bhamashah Hospital, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.05.13 15:05:41 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Adv. General. For respondents No. 4 to 6 : Ms. Anu Mishra, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard the matter finally. 2. This review petition under Rule 90 of the CG High Court Rules read with Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner for review / recall of order dated 5-8-2025 passed in WPC No. 4112/2025 and deciding the said writ petition on merit. 3. WPC No. 4112/2025 has been disposed of by the Coordinate bench vide order dated 5-8-2025, whereby following order was passed :- “The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the respondent No.3 has directed to hold election of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh on the basis of the amended clause by passing the bye-laws of the Sangh. 2. It has been submitted by the counsel for the parties that the petition may be disposed of in the light of the decision of this Court in WPC No. 4037 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 whereby the grounds raised by the petitioner has been decided. 3 3. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of in the light of the said order, copy of which has been annexed along with the record.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, WPC No. 4112/2025 was disposed of by this Court in terms of order (Annexure P-2) dated 5-8-2025 passed in WPC No. 4037/2025 by the coordinate bench, whereby aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on the ground that, since election process has already been initiated, therefore, the Bench restrained and refrained itself from interferring with the election process. He further submits that, in WPC No. 4037/2025 misleading facts and wrong submissions were made by respondents therein that, election process has been initiated, but no document was filed to demonstrate the fact that, election process has been initiated. Thus, aforesaid order dated 5-8-2025 has been obtained by making false submission by the respondent No. 4 of WPS No. 4037/2025 and based on that order dated 5-8-2025, respondents No. 4 to 6 of WPC No. 4112/2025 also obtained order dated 5-8-2025 on the basis of wrong statement, hence learned counsel submits that, the order dated 5-8- 2025 passed in WPC No. 4112/2025 may be recalled and the writ petition be restored and same be disposed of after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court on Annexure P-3 dated 13-8-2025, which is amended notification issued by the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh. 5. Respondent/State has filed its reply stating that election process has already completed and the same has also been informed by the 4 Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh vide Annexure R-1 dated 29-11-2025 to the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Nawa Raipur. He further submits that, in WPC No. 4037/2025, it was specific pleading of the petitioner therein (Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh) that, schedule for election has already been published vide order dated 30-4-2025, and on that premises, the Coordinate bench had disposed of aforesaid writ petition. He further submits that, the basis for filing instant review petition is amended notification dated 13-8-2025. Since earlier notification was modified, therefore, it cannot be said that election process was not initiated earlier, as it was the contention of the petitioner i.e. Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh in aforesaid writ petition that, election schedule has already been published vide order dated 30-4-2025 and based on the order passed in WPC No. 4037/2025, WPC No. 4112/2025 filed by the petitioner herein was also disposed of. Therefore, the instant review petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 has not filed their reply, however, learned counsel appearing for them extended her support to the reply and contention made by learned counsel for the State. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 8. Main ground of filing instant review petition is that, the order dated 5-8-2025 passed by the coordinate bench in WPC No. 4037/2025 was obtained on the basis of false pleading/statement. Perusal of aforesaid order Annexure P-2 dated 5-8-2025 shows that it was specific pleading of the petitioner therein that, CG Pradesh Sahu Sangh had already published the schedule for election vide order dated 30-4-2025. On that premises, aforesaid WPC No. 4037/2025 was disposed of by the Coordinate bench by making following order in para 8, 9 and 10 :- “8. Therefore as per Section 32 of the said Adhiniyam 1973, the power is vested with the Registrar to decide the dispute with regard to election. So far as the passing of order by the Assistant Registrar and directing the petitioner to initiate elections and direct the respondent No. 4 to conduct the election under the provisions of the bye-laws under Section 5(A)(B) and (C) is concerned, it is a matter of significance that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 wherein the petitioner has the liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority and raise all such objections. In the matter of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and Others, (2016) 4 SCC 429, the Apex Court has held in para 15 as under:- “15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election 6 programme on 27.01.2011 and more particularly, when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent No.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to the eligibility of respondent No.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent No.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments refered to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court’s order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election 7 should be dealt with only after completion of the election.” 9. If the process of election is interfered with by the court, possibly there would be a situation where no election can be concluded without judicial intervention thereby defeating the very objet of holding free and fair elections within a stipulated timeframe. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a well settled proposition of law that once the election process has commenced, the Courts ought to exercise judicial restrain and refrain from interfering with the electoral process, as any such intervention at this stage would impede the democratic process and contravene the established principle of election jurisprudence. This Court has taken a view that all the disputes with regard to election should be dealt with after completion of the election. 10. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of and interim stay stands vacated.” 9. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake 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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, it is further held that in exercise 8 of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 10. From perusal of the impugned order applying the aforesaid principle and considering the reasons assigned in the application for review, I am not inclined to entertain this review petition. 11. In the result, the review petition is dismissed at motion State. 12. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak