1 CGHC010348332025 2026:CGHC:32520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 254 of 2025 1 - Shri Jaiprakash Agrawal S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Jawahar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) (Resp No.3) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s. M.P. Kerosene Agency A Partnership Firm Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Partnership Act 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Partners 2 - Manmohan Agrawal S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal Aged About 58 Years Partner In M/s M.P. Kerosene Agency Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur- 492001 (C.G.) 3 - Brijmohan Agrawal S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal Aged About 60 Years Partner In M/s M.P. Kerosene Agency, Resident Of Jawahar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur- 492001 (C.G.) 4 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd A Company Incorporated Under The Indian Companies Act, 1956, Through Its Chairman, Having Its Registered Office At Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra E, Mumbai- 400051 5 - Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Divisional Ofdfice, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, (Vip Road) (P.O. Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur 492006 (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respective Respondent/s : Shri Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Animesh Pathak, Advocate and Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking review/ modification of the order dated 29.1.2025 passed in WPC No.2298 of 2014 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the review petitioner was unaware of the order passed in WPC No.1300 of 2016. It was only when the Registrar (Firms & Societies) proceeded to record the change/ reconstitution of the partnership that he came to know about the order and thereafter, this review petition was filed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. 5. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the reasons assigned in I.A. No.2 of 2025, same is allowed and the delay of 160 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 6. It is argued that in the writ petition, the communication dated 17.11.2014 was challenged. In the said communication, it was observed that Manmohan Agrawal (petitioner No.2 in the writ petition) failed to submit the proposal for reconstitution of the partnership firm, 3 within the stipulated time. It is contended that an application for amendment was filed seeking the quashing of the communication dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The said communication has been challenged by filing WPC No.1300 of 2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the order dated 29.1.2025, passed in WPC No.2298 of 2014, the Registrar (Firms & Societies) was directed to take a decision within 90 days on the proposals sent by M/s. M.P. Kerosene Agency and its partners with regard to restructuring of the firm. He would submit that the Registrar (Firms & Societies) was not a party to the litigation, nor was he impleaded as a party respondent in the said petition; therefore, there was no occasion to issue such a direction. He would pray to recall the order passed in WPC No.2298 of 2014. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Senior Advocate would contend that in WPC No.2298 of 2014, another counsel appeared for the review petitioner and bi-parte order was passed. He would contend that filing a review petition without any substantial error apparent on the face of record, that too; with change of counsel is not conductive to healthy practice of the Bar, which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of the profession. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736 and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 4 Review Petition No.422 of 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) dated 15.12.2025. He would contend that the present petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 10. A perusal of the order passed in WPC No.2298 of 2014 would make it clear that it was passed in presence of all the parties. Looking to the facts of the case, a direction was issued to the Registrar (Firms & Societies) to take a decision on the proposals submitted by the firm regarding its restructuring. 11. The petitioner has filed this review petition solely on the ground that a communication was made by the Registrar (Firms & Societies) on 24.12.2014, which has been challenged in a subsequent writ petition. 12. The scope of review jurisdiction is no longer res-integra and is well settled through a catena of decisions: an application for review cannot be treated as an opportunity to re-argue the case on merits. Under the garb of a review application, a re-hearing of the appeal on merits cannot be allowed. 13. In the matter of “Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others” reported in 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 5 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." 14. In the matter of “M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board” reported in 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.” 15. In view of the above-discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, there appears to be no error apparent on the face of the record. Because the scope of review is limited, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the case under the guise of a review, as it has already been addressed and decided. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi