1 CGHC010306392026 2026:CGHC:36148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 240 of 2026 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through General Manager Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Deputy Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Surakachhar, District- Korba (C.G.). 3 - Deputy Regional Manager Surakachhar, District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - Personnel Manager Surakachhar, District- Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dolkuwar W/o Late Bhagwat Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Bhilaibazar, Thana- Kusmunda, District- Korba (C.G.). 2 - Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Seepat Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Animeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. The review petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the order dated 24.03.2026 passed in WPS No. 6103 of 2021. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that in paragraph 6 of the order dated 24.03.2026, it has been observed that the relevant documents were in possession of the SECL authorities, but 2 no steps had been taken to process payment of the amount. He would further contend that SECL has been directed to make payment of the CMPF amount along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 25.05.1983. It is argued that the CMPF amount had already been paid to Smt. Dolkuwar by CMPHO, on 29.06.1987 through Cheque bearing No. 366544. It is submitted that this fact is evident from the passbook, receipt and other documents, however, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court and, therefore, the order passed in WPC No. 6103 of 2021 deserves to be recalled or modified. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the writ petition was disposed of in the presence of the Advocate representing the petitioner. The documents which have been placed along with the present review petition were not placed on record in the writ petition. He would contend that grounds which were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition cannot subsequently be raised in a review petition; thus, he would pray that the review petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small 3 Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 6. 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:- 9. “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.” 4 7. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but 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 like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 5 (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 8. 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.” 9. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 10. From perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is apparent that the review petitioner has made an attempt to set up a new case. Neither the pleadings nor the documents now relied upon were brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, which was decided in the presence of the Advocate representing SECL. No such application or submission was made at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 11.The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enable a party to fill up lacunae in its case or to introduce evidence which could not be brought at the time of hearing of original case. 6 12.Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out warranting review of the order dated 24.03.2026. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim