1 CGHC010163002026 2026:CGHC:27777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 172 of 2026 1. Walson (Died) Nill 2. Jhapo Bai (Died) Through Legal Heir As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-03-2024 And 11-06-2024 2.1 - (A) Sunita Otti D/o Valson Otti Aged About 34 Years R/o New Bus Stand Pendra, Tehsil Pendra, District- Pendra Gaurela - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. V.P. Rai (Died) Through Legal Heirs Nil 1.1 - (A) Smt. Kiran Jaiswal W/o Shri Kamta Jaiswal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Salka, Tahsil - Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Smt. Jyotsana Rai W/o Shri Umashankar Rai Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nagpur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Suresh Kumar Rai S/o Shri V.P. Rai Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Rumga, Tahsil Marwahi, District- Gaurela - Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Mukesh Kumar Rai S/o V.P. Rai Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rumga, Tahsil Marwahi, District- Gaurela - Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 1.5 - (E) Smt. Sandhya Jaiswal W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal R/o Village Sarai, Tahsil Sarai, District- Singrouli (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 06.07.2026 1. This review petition has been filed by the applicant on 21.04.2026 MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.07.08 17:30:47 +0530 2 assailing the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 196 of 2017 by which this Court has granted one year time to the appellant who is tenant of the respondent to vacate the premises and modified the decree for vacating the house from 2 months to one year on the consent given by the appellant of the case Smt. Sunita Otti. 2. The review petitioner (the legal heir of the appellant in the second appeal) seeks review of the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in SA No. 196 of 2017 merely on the ground that by the said order and alleged contention her right has been adversely affected and her right to contest the case on merit has been deprived. It has also been contended that the review petition is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC as the appeal has not been decided on merit. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is made out as the appellant herself has given consent without any reservation. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant is not tenant, her father was tenant who has already expired, therefore, also her tenancy itself has come to an end on account of death of her father Walson, as such, she has no authority to file this review application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Since the applicant herself has given her consent for vacating the suit premises within 1 year whereas both the Courts below have 3 granted time of 2 months to the review applicant to vacate the house. The record of the case further demonstrates that the Second Appeal No. 196/2017 is not admitted by this Court and this Court has granted interim order in favour of the original applicants Walson and Jhapo Bai on 29.03.2017 and the said interim order continued for more than 9 years without admission. Thus, by filing of present review application clearly demonstrates that the applicant intends to drag the proceedings. 6. Even otherwise, from perusal of the application and the order passed by this Court, it is quite vivid that no apparent mistake on the face of the record has been pointed out in the review application for invoking the power of review by this Court as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In absence of such apparent mistake on the face of record which entitles this Court to exercise the power of review, I am of the view that this review application deserves to be dismissed. 7. The record of the case further demonstrates that applicant has not shown any manifest error on the face of the record and has also not brought into the notice any new facts which can be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the applicant. It is well settled principles of 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 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It further appears from the contention made in the review application that the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb 4 of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 8. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review application, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review application into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}. 9. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish