1 CGHC010074652025 2026:CGHC:36440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 47 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jyoti Ratre W/o Late Krishna Kumar Ratre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Barpali Mohalla, Gevara Basti, Tahsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) (Claimants) 2 - Minor Mokchh Kumar Ratre S/o Late Krishna Kumar Ratre Aged About 11 Years Minor Legal Guardian Of Mother Smt. Jyoti Ratre W/o Late Krishna Kumar Ratre, R/o Village- Barpali Mohalla, Gevara Basti, Tahsil- Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) 3 - Minor Ku. Alisha Ratre D/o Late Krishna Kumar Ratre Aged About 7 Years Minor Legal Guardian Of Mother Smt. Jyoti Ratre W/o Late Krishna Kumar Ratre, R/o Village- Barpali Mohalla, Gevara Basti, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioners. versus 1 - Purushottam Singh Kanwar S/o Phool Singh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- New Pahnda, Thana-Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) (Non-Applicants) 2 - M/s Coal Man Proprietor R. K. Kedia R/o Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch- Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) 4 - Ram Prasad Ratre S/o Late Teej Ram Ratre Aged About 55 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Barpali Mohalla, Gevara Basti, Kusmunda, District-Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.18 10:31:18 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas with Applicant No.1 (In person) For Res No.3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Adv on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. This review petition has been filed seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in MAC No. 545/2019 (Smt. Jyoti Ratre & Others v. Purushottam Singh Kanwar & Others), whereby this Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation to some extent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the appeal preferred by the applicants (appellants/claimants therein), it was their specific contention that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased, Krishna Kumar Ratre, was perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Further, to substantiate this contention, the applicants relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Archit Saini & Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 365, and Jumani Begam v. Ram Narayan & Others, AIR Online 2019 SC. However, these citations were erroneously shown as relied upon by the respondent/Insurance Company in the impugned judgment. He submits that owing to such mis-attribution, this Court committed an error in upholding 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, he prays that the review petition be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that even though the aforesaid judgments were cited on behalf of 3 the applicants, such a typographical error, if any, in attribution does not render the finding regarding 50% contributory negligence perverse or erroneous. He contends that the findings recorded by this Court are just, proper, and based on a meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record. Thus, the reference of the citations has not affected the final outcome of the impugned judgment adversely. In view of these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the review petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that under the garb of a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to re-argue the case on merits. Doing so would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law. 6. The scope of review jurisdiction is very limited. In Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the ambit and scope of review powers, observed that a review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Review constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It was further held that the power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view, and must strictly remain within statutory limits. 7. Similarly, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020, decided on 03.11.2020), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a judgment is open to review, inter alia, only if 4 there is an error apparent on the face of the record. An error that is not self- evident and requires detection through a process of reasoning can hardly be termed an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify exercising review powers under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It was emphasized that Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC does not permit an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. There lies a clear distinction between an erroneous decision which can only be corrected by a higher forum in appeal and an error apparent on the face of the record, which alone is remediable in review. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the main grievance of the applicants is that the judgments relied upon by them, namely Archit Saini (supra) and Jumani Begam (supra), were inadvertently attributed on the part of the respondent/Insurance Company in the judgment dated 25.09.2024. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has fairly conceded that these citations were indeed cited by the applicants rather than the Insurance Company. 9. However, perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the finding of 50% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased was independently arrived at by this Court in Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 after a thorough examination of the factual matrix and evidence on record. The mere inadvertent reference to the applicants' citations under the submissions of the Insurance Company does not vitiate the core reasoning, factual findings, or final conclusion reached by this Court regarding contributory negligence of 50%. Moreover, this Court has also enhanced the amount of compensation to some extent. 5 10. In view of the foregoing legal principles and factual analysis, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with or recall of the judgment dated 25.09.2024. The review petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay