1 2026:CGHC:26460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 175 of 2026 1 - Meet Lal Kaushik S/o Gokran Prasad Kaushik Aged About 50 Years Mazdoor, R/o Dhandhan Tahsil- Takhatpur Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ravi Kumar S/o Gokran Prasad Aged About 39 Years Agriculturist, R/o Village - Dhandhan, Tehsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. (C.G.) 2 - Durga Prasad S/o Gokran Prasad Aged About 42 Years Agriculturist, R/o Village - Dhandhan, Tehsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur.(C.G.) 3 - Brij Mohan Kaushik S/o Ravi Kumar Kaushik Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Dhandhan, Tehsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur.(C.G.) 4 - Jagmohan Kaushik S/o Ravi Kumar Kaushik Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Father And Natural Guardian Ravi Kumar S/o Gokran Prasad R/o Village - Dhandhan, Tehsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. (C.G.) 5 - State Of M.P. (Now State Of C.G.), Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal and Shri Manish Thakur, Advocates. For Respondent/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking modification/ recall of judgment passed in F.A. Nos.33 of 2004 & 32 of 2004 arising out of Civil Suits No.103A of 1999 and 102A of 1999, dated 6.11.2025. 2) The facts, in brief, are that the review petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property is joint family property of plaintiff, respondent No.1 – Ravi Kumar and respondent No.2 – Durga Prasad. The petitioner also challenged the validity of two sale deeds dated 18.5.1998 executed by mother of the plaintiff, namely Keshar Bai in favour of Saraswati Bai, wife of Ravi Kumar and Brijmohan, son of Ravi Kumar. F.A. Nos.33 of 2004 & 32 of 2004 were filed by the petitioner herein assailing the judgment dated 22.4.2003. Both the appeals were dismissed. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that defendant No.2 did not appear before the learned trial Court in the witness- box and this fact was not considered. He would further submit that the evidence of Ravi Kumar Kaushik/ respondent No.1 was not properly appreciated. It is also contended that Ravi Kumar Kaushik did not have sufficient funds to purchase the suit property. It is further argued that the evidence of Dev Prasad Kaushik (PW-2) and Raj Kumar (PW-3) were not properly considered. 3 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. This Court examined sale-deeds Ex.6A & Ex.6 executed on 18.5.1998 and recorded a finding that Keshar Bai alone was owner of the suit property as she had inherited it from her father and therefore, she had lawful authority over the property. This Court further examined the evidence of Meet Lal Kaushik (PW-1) and Bharat Lal Soni (DW-1) and recorded a finding that no relief of possession had been sought for whereas, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within 4 his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 7) In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 9. “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error 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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 5 8) In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- “15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. 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 also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for 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 like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error 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 the points where there may conceivably be 6 two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.” 9) In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 10) In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 11) In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in FA Nos. 33 of 2004 & 32 of 2004. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, FA Nos. 33 of 2004 & 32 of 2004 decided by this Court on 6.11.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no 7 error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in FA Nos. 33 of 2004 & 32 of 2004 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 12) Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi