2026:JHHC:24372 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.5 of 2026 ------ Nanak Sharan, Son of Late Suraj Prasad, Resident of Qr. No. RMK4- 368, (Rangamati), PO + PS-Sindri, Dist-Dhanbad. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources, Development, Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi. 3. The Director, Human Resources, Development, Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi. 4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, having its office at Ranchi, PO, GPO, PS-Kotwali, Dist-Ranchi. 5. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, having its office at Hazaribagh, PO-Hazaribagh, PS & Dist-Hazaribagh. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. OM Prakash Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishani Sen, Adv. Mr. Shiwan Lath, Adv. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. ------ 06/ 14th August, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This is a review application and not an appeal. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that this is a review in disguise of appeal. Learned counsel addresses on the merit of the case, brings in all new facts. 4. The grounds which the petitioner is taking cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In the case of “Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.8 has held as under:- “8. It is well settled 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, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, 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: (SCC p. 390, para 3) 2026:JHHC:24372 Page | 2 “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude 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. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.” 9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent 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 points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: An error which has to be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from selfevident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. 15. In our view the aforesaid approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC by merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent in view of the settled legal position indicated by us earlier. In substance, the Review Bench has reappreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench’s findings regarding C.S. Plot No. 74 were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an appellate court. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to point out how the reasoning adopted and conclusion reached by the Review Bench can be supported within the narrow and limited 2026:JHHC:24372 Page | 3 scope of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Right or wrong, the earlier Division Bench judgment had become final so far as the High Court was concerned. It could not have been reviewed by reconsidering the entire evidence with a view to finding out the alleged apparent error for justifying the invocation of review powers. Only on that short ground, therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed. The final decision dated 8-7- 1986 of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal from Appellate Decree No. 569 of 1973 insofar as C.S. Plot No. 74 is concerned as well as the review judgment dated 5-9-1984 in connection with the very same plot, i.e., C.S. Plot No. 74, are set aside and the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 3-8-1978 allowing the second appeal regarding suit Plot No. 74 is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Conductors Private Limited Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677 at paragraph No.12 has held as under:- “12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 677 a three judge Bench of this Court, following Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.” 7. Considering the statement in the review petition, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment cited above, no ground is made out to review the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in WP(S) No.1901 of 2014. 8. Accordingly, this review application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 14th August, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 22 /08/2026