1 CGHC010149672026 2026:CGHC:31608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 120 of 2026 1 - M/s Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited (Formerly Lafarge India Private Limited) Through Managing Director, Crecenzo Building, B-Wing, 10th Floor, C-38 And 39, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra, East Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra (At Present Having Registered Office In Equinox Business Park, Tower-3, 4th Floor, L B S Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai 400070) 2 - Managing Director Nuvoco Arasmeta Cement Plant (Formerly Lafarge India Pvt. Limited), Village Arasmeta, Tahsil Akaltara, Police Station And Post Office Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - A V P, Nuvoco Arasmeta Cement Plant (Formerly Lafarge India Pvt. Limited), Village Arasmeta, Tahsil Akaltara, Police Station And Post Office Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Manrakhan Lal Awasthi (Died And Deleted) (Died And Deleted In Writ Petition As Honble Court Order Dated 05-09-2022) 2 - Sandhya Trivedi D/o Manrakhan Lal Awasthi Aged About 37 Years R/o Quarter No. V-8, Sunflower Apartment, Nayapara, Chakarbhata, Police Station And Post Office Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 23.07.2026 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioners under Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 seeking review of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 3811 of 2019. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.28 18:06:51 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue of maintainability, which strikes at the very root of the writ petition and pertains to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the same, has not been adjudicated. It is contended that, in the absence of a finding on such a foundational issue, the writ petition could not have been finally decided on merits. It is, therefore, urged that the present review petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Rathore and Others v. Commissioner, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation and Others, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1633. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners have failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant exercise of the limited jurisdiction of review. It is, therefore, contended that the review petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that the question of maintainability of the writ petition was not adjudicated by this Court while passing the order sought to be reviewed. The said submission does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the order passed by the this Court in the earlier round of litigation would show that this Court had consciously refrained from entering into the question of maintainability as only a limited direction had been issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners. Consequently, the issue of maintainability was left open. 3 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. The order of this Court was subjected to appellate scrutiny and the findings recorded therein were not interfered with by the Division Bench. Significantly, the petitioners had the opportunity to urge all such grounds, including the present contention relating to maintainability, before the appellate forum. The petitioners withdrew the said writ appeal with liberty to file review petition. Having availed of the appellate remedy, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to reagitate the very same contention in the guise of a review petition. 7. The jurisdiction of this Court while exercising powers of review is extremely limited. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise. Unless there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced despite due diligence or any other ground analogous thereto, the power of review cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible or because a party seeks reconsideration of the matter on merits. 8. It is well settled that the power of review is to be exercised sparingly and within the limited ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. A review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked to re-appreciate the evidence or re-examine issues already adjudicated upon. If the relief sought is intended to alter the substance of the judgment or substitute one possible view for another, the appropriate remedy lies in appeal and not by way of review. Tthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685, has held that while a patent or manifest error may justify review, an error requiring a process of reasoning or re- appreciation of the matter cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. 4 9. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 has held that the power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible. Relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.” 10. In the present case, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners has already been urged in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioners, having taken a conscious and calculated chance by pursuing the appellate remedy, cannot be permitted to reopen the concluded issues through the present review proceedings. What is sought is, in substance, a rehearing of the matter, which is wholly impermissible within the limited ambit of review jurisdiction. The reliance placed on Vinod Rathore (supra) is misplaced, as the said decision has not application to the facts of the present case and does not disclose any error apparent on the face of record. 5 11. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. 12. Consequently, the review petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed, subject to deposition of costs of Rs.500/-. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chhattisgarh within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. d/- Sd Sd s/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari