1 2026:CGHC:24126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 103 of 2026 1 - Bhishma Kinger S/o Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari Aged About 85 Years R/o B-2, First Floor R. S. Park, Behind Chhattisgarh College, Byron Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ..........Plaintiff. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Suryakant Tiwari S/o Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari Aged About 46 Years R/o Presently Released On Bail On Condition That He Will Live Outside Chhattisgarh, Hence C/o His Counsel Shri Nitin Tiwari, Adv. At Advocates Chamber No. 107 First Floor District Civil Court Bldg. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ......Main Defendant-1. 2 - Anupam Cooperative Housing Society Limited Raipur (Dissolved), By Cooperative Inspector, Office Of The Sub- Registrar, Cooperative Societies, First Floor, Vivekananda Complex, Vivekananda Nagar, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........Ex Parte No. 2. 3 - Indermani Mineral India Private Limited Registered Company, Tower C-1, First Floor, Aishwarya Chamber, G. E. Road, Telibandha, 492001, Chhattisgarh No. 3 Ex Parte. .....Non Applicants. ---- Respondent(s) (Application for review of the order dated 18.02.2026 passed in WP227 No. 292 of 2025) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 16.06.2026 1. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18.02.2026 passed in WP227 No. 292 of 2025 wherein KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.06.16 17:14:20 +0530 2 following order has been passed :- “2. From perusal of records as well as order sheets of the trial Court, it is quite vivid, that the suit filed by the plaintiff is already at the stage of evidence,therefore, at this juncture it will not be expedient for this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 by which the trial Court has arrayed M/s. Indermani Mineral India Private Limited as party to the case and also the trial Court has passed the order dated 07.03.2025 by which the trial Court directed the plaintiff to provide document to newly added defendant No. 3 that order is inconformity with principal of natural justice and fair play also as once the party has already been arrayed and all the opportunity should be given to all the defendants to defend their case, as such I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 06.02.2025 and 07.03.2025 warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of and it is disposed of. 3. However, looking to the age of the plaintiff/petitioner who is presently 85years old, it is deemed to appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial within outer limit of one year from the date of production of the copy of the order passed by this Court. It is also directed that the trial Court see that the parties of suit should avoid undue delay in conclusion of the trial and if the parties adopt any delay tactics the trial Court is at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law as per provisions of CPC.” 2. On going through the aforesaid order, it is manifest that after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and 3 after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has passed the order which is sought to be reviewed herein. 3. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of 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 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to re-agitate the issue afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 5. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 4 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 6. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore