1 2026:CGHC:14868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 91 of 2026 1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman/Board Of Directors Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Cum Authorized Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Sushil Kumar Sharma S/o Bahorik Lal Sharma Aged About 57 Years R/o Gali No. 06, Ward No. 02, Behind Sbt College Kududand, Bilaspur (M.Corp), District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Po And Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar Cooperative Societies Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Cooperative Societies Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner (Revenue) Bilaspur Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate with Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.04.01 16:33:55 +0530 2 01.04.2026 1. The petitioners (respondents No. 5 to 7 in WPS No. 13382 of 2025) have filed the present review petition for reviewing the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 13382 of 2025 (Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) wherein this Court has dismissed the petition as withdrawn granting liberty to respondent No. 1 (petitioner in WPS No. 13382 of 2025) to file an application before the Registrar Cooperative Society within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and it has also been observed that Adjudicating Authority shall decide the dispute on its own merit without insisting for delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445 in paragraph 22 has held that in Section 55 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 there is no provision for condonation of delay, as such there is apparent mistake on their part and would pray for reviewing the order dated 27.11.2025. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that it is not an apparent mistake on the face of the record as this Court has allowed the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in WPS No. 13382 of 2025) to withdraw the petition and liberty was granted. Even otherwise once liberty has been granted by this Court, the delay will be automatically condoned, as such, there is no apparent mistake on face of the record. 4. From perusal of the order for which review is sought, it is quite vivid that this Court has already granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application, therefore the delay, if any, stands automatically condoned, 3 as such, there is no apparent mistake on the face of the record which requires review. 5. It is well settled principle 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 appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 6. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition 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}. 7. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika