1 2026:CGHC:27439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 189 of 2026 Niranjan Pandey S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Seoni Tehsil Campa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Manorama Pandey W/o Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Pandey Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Seoni-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ishwari D/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Pandey D/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Pandey Wife Of Rakesh Shastri, R/o Nutan Colony Seepat Road, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nandani D/o Late Bhatgwat Prasad Pandy W/o Ashwani Mishra R/o Bajrang Chowk Seepat, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Firtin Bai W/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Seoni SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.03 16:25:18 +0530 2 Tehsil Champa District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, 5 - Santosh Dubey S/o Banke Bihari Dubey R/o Village Saida Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 6 - Sanjay Pandey S/o Bahoran R/o Village- Belsari Tehsil Takhatpur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Banke Bihari S/o Ram Khilawan Dubey R/o Village Saida Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir-Champa ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge By circulation in chamber 03.07.2026 1. The review petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, seeks review of the judgment dated 19.03.2026 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 461/2018. 2. The matter is taken up for consideration in Chambers under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 3. (a) The main contention of the review petitioner is that the judgment under review suffers from errors apparent on the 3 face of the record and is liable to be reviewed. It is pleaded that this Court has erroneously applied the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to an alleged partition of the year 2000, though the amendment has no retrospective application. It is further averred that this Court rejected the plea of oral partition merely on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced, overlooking the settled legal position that an oral partition can be established by long-standing separate possession and conduct of the parties. (b) The review petitioner also stated that the registered sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 8 have not been given due consideration despite the settled principle that a co-sharer is competent to transfer his undivided share in the joint family property. It is also contended that the second appeal was dismissed solely on the basis of concurrent findings without examining whether such findings suffered from perversity, misapplication of law or non-consideration of material evidence. According to the review petitioner, the application preferred under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected without 4 assigning cogent reasons and that this Court failed to appreciate the true nature of the transaction, the pleadings, admissions and other material evidence indicating a prior partition, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. 4. I have considered the grounds raised by the review petitioner and have perused the judgment sought to be reviewed. A careful reading of the judgment demonstrates that all the issues sought to be raised in the present review petition were duly considered while deciding the second appeal. The findings recorded therein are based on appreciation of the pleadings, evidence available on record and the applicable legal principles. The review petitioner has failed to point out any patent or manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 5. The pleadings relating to the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plea of oral partition, the validity of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner, the rejection of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and the appreciation of evidence are all matters touching upon the merits of the judgment. The grounds urged by the petitioner essentially seek reconsideration of the 5 findings already recorded by this Court and require re- appreciation of facts as well as law. Such an exercise falls within the domain of appellate jurisdiction and not within the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of review is extremely limited and can be exercised only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not, despite due diligence, be produced earlier, or for any other sufficient reason within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. A review proceeding cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise nor can it be invoked for rehearing the matter on merits. In the present case, no such ground has been made out. 7. The aforesaid legal position stands consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co., (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through 6 LRs. v. Aravindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692, wherein it has been held that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised for re- appreciation of evidence or reconsideration of issues already adjudicated. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the review petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The review petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib