1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 157 of 2026 Fatte Lal Sahu S/o Shri Tika Ram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Karma Vihar Moti Nagar Behind Ram Mandir Old Dhamtari Road Raipur Chhattisgarh Presently Posted As Assistant Engineer Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh- (Petitioner In Writ Petition) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur C.G. (Respondent N. 1 In Writ Petition) 2 - Director Derectorate Of Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur C.G. ( Respondent No. 2 In Writ Petition) 3 - The Joint Director Regional Office Raipur Division District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 3 In Writ Petition) 4 - The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner Office Of Municipal Raipur District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 4 In Writ Petition) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For respondent No. 4 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal 2 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. This review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 13.04.2026 passed in WPS No. 3477 of 2025. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicant has relied upon Rule 12 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and further Section 420 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The Rules 1966 and Act of 1956 is not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the review application be allowed. 3. Counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission and would submit that the re-argument of the case on merits is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rule 1966 as also the provision under the Act of 1956 which is relied upon while dismissing the writ petition are not applicable to the facts of the case. This Court upon considering the submission of counsel for the parties have considered and decided the writ petition on merits. If for any reason it is the case of the petitioner that the law which is relied upon for deciding the writ petition on merits and dismissing the same are not applicable, it can be agitated before the Appellate Court. This Court will not consider the submission raised by counsel for the appellant as an appellate Court. 6. The final order of the case based on the arguments raised earlier also 3 can be considered/challenged only by way of an appeal and not in a review application. Review application is to be admitted only when there is error apparent on face of record. 7. 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:- “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.” 8. 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.” 9. 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 4 the High Court 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…….” 10. In view of the aforementioned discussion and taking into consideration the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to admit this review petition. 11. Accordingly, the review petition, stands dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh