1 CGHC010244902026 2026:CGHC:29822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 198 of 2026 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.4 in WP No. 2818 of 2003) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Pushpa Devi Agrawal (Died) Through LRs. 1.1 - Nirmala Agrawal W/o Lt. Subhash Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Shriji Heights, Flat No. 101, Civil Line, Behind Electric Office, Byron Bazaar, Prem Kunj, Govind Kunj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (LR of original Petitioner No.1) (Petitioner No.1.1 in writ petition) 1.2 - Kanhaiya Agrawal S/o Lt. Subhash Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Shriji Heights, Flat No. 101, Civil Line, Behind Electric Office, Byron Bazaar, Prem Kunj, Govind Kunj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (LR of original Petitioner No.1) (Petitioner No.1.2 in writ petition) 1.3 - Parag Agrawal S/o Late Subhash Agrawal, R/o Shriji Heights, Flat No. 101, Civil Line, Behind Electric Office, Byron Bazaar, Prem Kunj, Govind Kunj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (LR of original Petitioner No.1) (Petitioner No.1.3 in writ petition) 1.4 - Mona Agrawal W/o Vivek Jindal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 902 Beach Park B.L.V.D. Apt 133, Foster City, C.A. 94404, San Francisco (LR of original Petitioner No.1) (Petitioner No.1.4 in writ petition) 2 - Subhash Chandra Agrawal (Died) (Petitioner No.2 in writ petition) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.1 in writ petition) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.17 15:27:06 +0530 2 4 - The Secretary Urban Administration and Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.2 in writ petition) 5 - Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.3 in writ petition) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate with Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1.1 to 1.4 : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 14-07-2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a review petition filed by the petitioner with following prayer :- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to review and recall the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP No. 2818 of 2003 (ANNEXURE A/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The impugned order was passed by this Court in WP No. 2818 of 2003, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners was allowed on 12.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2818 of 2003 dated 12.03.2026 goes to show that the matter was argued by Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent No.4/review petitioner herein, whereas the present review petition has been filed by Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate, who is a new counsel. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, has deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: 3 "1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained ''No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact 4 that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the ''No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the ''No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition." 6. The observation made in N. Raju Reddiar (supra) has been further relied upon by the Allahabad High Court in the recent judgment in the matter of Jai Singh vs The State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine All 4490. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also taken a similar view in case of “Sanjeev Kumar Yadav V/s State of Chhattisgarh and Others”, Review Petition No. 422/2025, decided on 15.12.2025. 7. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of “Vinita Bhatnagar v. Union of India” 2018 SCC Online Allahabad 6411 followed the N. Raju Reddiar case (supra) and has held that:- “1. …….. It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. In T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of arguing the matter by one Counsel and review by another Counsel and has observed that the review application ought to have been filed by the, same Counsel who has argued the matter.” 8. The scope of review jurisdiction is no longer res-integra and it is well settled through a catena of decisions that, an application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb of the review application, rehearing of the appeal on merits cannot be allowed. 5 9. In the matter of “Tungabhadra Industries Limited v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh” AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” 10. 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 :- "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." 11. 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.” 12. The learned counsel could not dispute the above-stated proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court and further could not give a plausible reply for non-appearance of Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate, in the present review petition. 13. In view of above, the present review petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil