1 2026:CGHC:24908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 39 of 2023 Smt. Shanti Devi D/o Late Shri Umrao Lal Mahawar Aged About 72 Years R/o First Floor, R/o 26 Central, Avenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - Smt. Sharda Mahawar Widow Of Late Shre Niranjan Lal Mahawar Aged About 84 Years R/o 26 Central, Avenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Mahawar S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Mahawar Aged About 56 Years R/o First Floor 26 Central, Avenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sachindra Mahawar S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Mahawar Aged About 54 Years R/o First Floor 26 Central, Avenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kirti Vishwakarma W/o Shailesh Vishwakarma Aged About 44 Years R/o Anshan Township District- Indore, (M.P.) 5 - Nirmal Mahawar S/o Late Shri Umrao Lal Mahawar Aged About 69 Years R/o 26 Central, Avenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Res No.1 and 2 : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.06.22 12:58:26 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. This review petition has been filed for recall/rehearing of order dated 23.11.2020 passed by this Court in WP227 No.987/2018 (Sharda Mahawar and others Vs. Nirmal Mahawar and another), whereby, this Court declined to quash the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the concerned Executing Court in Execution Case No.2808/2017. 2. The aforesaid execution case was filed for execution of judgment and decree dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.45A/2002 (Niranjan Lal Mahawar Vs. Nirmal Mahawar and another), whereby, learned Additional District Judge has passed the following decree in favour of the plaintiff Niranjan Lal Mahawar:- "1. Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the First Floor of Property situated at 26, Choubey Colony, Raipur. Defendants are directed to handover the same within two months the same within two months from today. 2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f 15.03.95 till its realization and 80 Tolas gold jewellery in terms of 'Acknowledgment of oral partition' dt. 07.12.1994 from defendant No.1. 3. In the facts and circumstances, plaintiff shall be entitled to recover costs of the suit from defendants." 3. The aforesaid decree further was challenged by the defendants by filing the First Appeal No.399/2017 (Nirmal Mahawar Vs. Niranjan Lal Mahawar) before the learned Division Bench of this Court, whereby, vide order dated 25.06.2018 the learned Division Bench has passed the following order:- 3 "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we hereby direct that the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of recovery of possession of the House shall remain stayed. However, there is no stay on the monetary part, the appellant will have to satisfy the monetary part within a period of one month. The said recovery of possession would only subject to compliance of monetary part of the decree as directed by this Court It is further directed that the parties to the dispute shall not create third party interest in respect of the House in respect of which decree has been passed, without leave of the Court." 4. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.09.2018 learned Division Bench has allowed the application for extension of time period for compliance of order dated 25.06.2016 in following manner:- "IA No. 03 under Section 148 read with section 151 of the CPC for extension of time period for compliance of order dated 25.06.2016:- It is stated at the bar that the conditions imposed on the appellant while allowing interim relief on 25.06.2018 has been complied with. However, the appellant has not filed any proof of compliance, therefore, the application is disposed of with a direction that if the appellant has not yet complied with the condition, he may do so within one month from today. If there is compliance within one month, the interim order dated 25.06.2018 shall inure to the benefit of both the parties and in the event the compliance has not been made the interim order shall bind the appellant only for not creating third party interest or alienation of the suit house. I.A. No. 03 is disposed of in the above stated terms." 5. In the meantime, the execution proceedings were also initiated. However, since the conditional stay order was not complied with within the time 4 granted by the learned Division Bench, the learned Executing Court proceeded with the execution of the decree. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the late Niranjan Lal Mahawar, who passed away during the proceedings, filed WP(227) No. 987/2018, asserting that since the conditional order had not been complied with, the execution of the entire decree should be directed. However, vide order dated 23.11.2020, this Court disposed of the petition in the following terms: "10. On perusal of the order dated 25.6.2018, it is clear that a Division Bench of this Court had in clear terms ordered that the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of recovery of the house shall remain stayed and it was made clear that there will be no stay on the monetary part which has to be complied with within a period of one month. The specific words in the order make it clear that no stay was granted for the relief of handing over of 80 tolas gold by respondent No.1 to the petitioners. 11. Another order dated 27.9.2018 mentions that if the compliance of order is not made then the interim order dated 25.6.2018 to this extent that no third party interest shall be created or alienation of the suit house shall not be made, shall be binding on the appellant i.e. respondent No.1 herein. 12. This Court cannot go into details. However, from the interpretation of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court, it is clearly found that there was no stay order for the relief of handing over of 80 tolas gold by respondent No.1 to the petitioners, hence, that part of the decree had to be complied with to avail benefit of the stay order. As it is clear that this part of the decree about handing over gold articles is pending for execution, hence, it may be said that the conditional stay order passed on 25.6.2018 has not come into operation, for any further clarification the 5 Respondent No.1 shall have to approach the Court hearing the appeal. 13. The impugned order does not speak of making any interpretation of the orders of the High Court in FA No.399/2017, therefore, there is no requirement to quash the same. However, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed with the execution in the trial Court, which may be guided by the observations made in this order. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off." 6. The aforesaid order has been sought for recall and rehearing by filing the instant review petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has not passed any monetary decree against applicant herein (defendant No.2) in civil suit, therefore, nothing has to be complied with by the applicant in respect of conditional stay order passed by the learned Division Bench. Despite the applicant has been evicted from the subject suit house in light of order dated 23.11.2020 passed by this Court in WP227 No.987/2018. Hence, the review petition may be admitted for hearing. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that vide impugned order dated 23.11.2020, the writ petition (227) was disposed of on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. He also submits that if petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order then he ought to have preferred revision/appeal. He also submits that since the applicant has failed to brought any fact to demonstrate any clerical or apparent error on face of impugned order, the impugned order cannot be recalled. Hence, this review has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 6 9. The recall and rehearing of the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2020 has been sought by filing the instant review petition. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the trial Court has not passed any monetary decree against the applicant herein (Defendant No. 2) in the civil suit, there was nothing to be complied with by her in respect of the conditional stay order passed by the learned Division Bench. He further submits that despite this, the applicant has been evicted from the subject suit house in light of the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by this Court in WP(227) No. 987/2018. Hence, it is prayed that the review petition may be admitted for hearing. 11. In reply, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that vide the impugned order dated 23.11.2020, the writ petition was disposed of on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. He further submits that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order, she ought to have preferred a revision or an appeal before in accordance with law. He also submits that since the applicant has failed to bring any fact to demonstrate any clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the impugned order cannot be recalled. Hence, this review petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 13. The primary contention of the applicant (Defendant No. 2) is that since no monetary decree was passed specifically against her in the original civil suit, she was not required to comply with the conditional stay order passed by the learned Division Bench, and therefore, her eviction from the suit house in light of the order dated 23.11.2020 is erroneous. 7 14. 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. 15. Further, a review petition has a limited scope. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, [(2019) 20 SCC 753], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the ambit and scope of the power of review, considered its various earlier judgments and held that 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 held that the power of review can be exercised for the 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 as an appeal in disguise. 16. Similarly, the Hon'ble 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, held that in exercise 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 8 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'. 17. This Court, while disposing of WP227 No. 987/2018 has passed the order dated 23.11.2020 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the interim and subsequent orders passed by the learned Division Bench in First Appeal No. 399/2017. If the applicant was aggrieved by the legal findings arrived at by this Court in the order dated 23.11.2020, she has remedy to challenge the said order further in accordance with law, rather than seeking a rehearing under the guise of a review petition. Hence, in light of aforesaid settled law, the applicant has entirely failed to point out any clerical mistake, mathematical error, or an error apparent on the face of the record that would justify the exercise of review jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to recall or reheard the order dated 23.11.2020. The review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay