1 CGHC010191702026 2026:CGHC:29210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 173 of 2026 1 - Ms. Startup Engineers I.D.B.I. Bank, In Front Of Atm, Sindhi Colony, Tashil And District Bilaspur, Through- Partner Fazle Rasool R/o H/88, Narmada Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) And Partner- Smt. Sujata Manik 2 - Smt. Shabnam Aara W/o Abdul Kalam Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 7, House No. 1569, Gurughasidas Nagar, Mini Basti, Jarhabhatha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bank Of Baroda Branch- Rosarb, Through- Chief Manager, Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Deochandra Jha, Aged About 45 Years, Address Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Rashtriya Laghu Ughog Nigam Limited (Government Of India Undertaking), Through- Manager, 204, A-Block, Cristal Arkid, Near Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur 492007 C.G. 3 - Vishwajeet Bhoumik Proprietor, Uddan Finance Company, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - M/s. Abhilash Engineering Through Manager, Abhilash Banarjee, Office Address- Uddan Finance Company Building, Jarhabhatha, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Bilaspur, R/o Lane No. 3 And 4, Bangali Para, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Advocates For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For respondent No.1 :- Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.07.2026 1. By way of the present review petition, the review petitioners seek review of the judgment and order dated 09.04.2026 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.315 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent-Bank was allowed, the order of the trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was set aside and the plaint was directed to be rejected as being barred by law. 2. The brief facts, as projected in the review petition, are that the review petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.88-A/2019 before the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur seeking declaration that the alleged loan transaction entered into with the respondent-Bank was null and void, alleging that the 3 documents relied upon by the Bank were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and deceit. Consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property was also sought. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-Bank preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on 23.12.2019 holding that from the averments contained in the plaint, it could not be held that the suit was barred by law and that the allegations of fraud required adjudication on merits. Subsequently, during pendency of the suit, proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal culminated in passing of a recovery certificate. Relying upon the subsequent developments, the respondent-Bank filed a second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court stood barred. The trial Court, by order dated 24.06.2025, dismissed the second application holding that the earlier order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC continued to operate and the matter required adjudication on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Bank preferred Civil Revision No.315 of 2025. This Court, by judgment dated 09.04.2026, allowed the revision petition holding that in view of the subsequent proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the statutory bar contained under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the civil suit was not maintainable and accordingly directed rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4 Seeking review of the aforesaid judgment, the present review petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the judgment dated 09.04.2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It is contended that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be considered and neither the defence of the defendants nor any subsequent event could have been taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had already been rejected by the trial Court on 23.12.2019 and the said order had attained finality. Therefore, the second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable. Learned counsel would further submit that the judgment under review proceeds on the basis of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and other subsequent developments, which do not form part of the plaint and therefore could not have been relied upon while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is also contended that the petitioners could not effectively advance submissions on merits when the civil revision was taken up for hearing and therefore the judgment deserves to be reconsidered. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank opposes the review petition and submits that the review petition does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record 5 warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. It is submitted that the grounds raised in the review petition are nothing but a reiteration of the submissions advanced in the civil revision and seek reconsideration of the merits of the judgment rendered by this Court. According to the learned counsel, the review petitioners are virtually seeking rehearing of the matter, which is impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the scope of review is extremely limited and unless there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground recognized under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the judgment cannot be reopened merely because another view is possible. It is, therefore, prayed that the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The scope of review jurisdiction is well settled. The power of review cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. A review is maintainable only when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other ground contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Mere repetition of the submissions already advanced or seeking a rehearing on merits does not furnish a ground for review. 7. A perusal of the review petition would reveal that all the grounds urged by the review petitioners essentially challenge the 6 correctness of the reasoning adopted in the judgment dated 09.04.2026. The submissions that only the averments in the plaint ought to have been considered, that the earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had attained finality, that the subsequent proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal could not have been relied upon and that the suit ought to have been permitted to proceed on merits, are all issues touching upon the correctness of the judgment itself. 8. The aforesaid contentions were either specifically considered while deciding the civil revision or were available to the review petitioners to be urged at the time of hearing of the revision. The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reappreciation of the issues already decided or for taking a different view on the same set of facts. 9. The contention that learned counsel could not advance detailed submissions at the time of hearing of the civil revision also does not constitute a ground falling within the ambit of review jurisdiction. Likewise, reliance upon judicial precedents for seeking a different interpretation of the issues decided cannot be a ground to reopen the judgment in review. 10. This Court does not find any patent error, manifest mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 09.04.2026 warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The review 7 petition, in substance, seeks reconsideration of the judgment on merits, which is beyond the permissible scope of review. 11. Consequently, no ground for review of the judgment and order dated 09.04.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.315 of 2025 is made out. 12. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha