1 CGHC010143052026 2026:CGHC:40263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 152 of 2026 Om Prakash Bhatt S/o Shri Bans Gopal Bhatt Aged About 62 Years R/-27/V V, Vaishnavi Vihar, Phase-1, Uslapur, P.O.- Sakri, P.S.- Sakri, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sharad Tudu (Dead) Hence Through His Legal Representatives: 1(a). - Kavita Tudu W/o Sharad Tudu Aged Aged About 56 Years 1(b). - Nupur Tudu Alias Sana Tudu D/o Sharad Tudu Aged About 22 Years Both respondents no. 1(a) and 1(b) are residents of Jyotipur, P.O.- Pendra Road P.S.- Pendra Road, Now Distt.- G.P.M. (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Ramchand Agwani (Dead) Hence Through His Legal Representatives- 2(a) - Smt. Agwani W/o Lt. Ram Chand Agwani Aged About 60 Years 2(b) - Amar Agwani S/o- Ramchad Agwani, Aged About 40 Years 2(c) - Kishan Agwani S/o- Ramchad Agwani Aged About 40 Years 2(d) - Rohit Agwani S/o- Ramchad Agwani, Aged About 25 Years All respondents no. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) are Residents of Jyotipur Squire, P.O.- Pendra Road, P.S.- Pendra Road, Distt.- G.P.M. (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Suchandra Tiwari S/o Santosh Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Dhanouli, Tahsil- Pendra Road, P.O.- Pendra Road, P.S.- Pendra Road, Distt.- G.P.M. (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Herikelip Tudu, S/o Samual Tudu Aged About 72 Years R/o Tikarsani (Jyotipur), Tahsil- Pendra Road, P.O.- Pendra Road, P.S.- Pendra Road, Distt.- G.P.M. (C.G.) ... Respondents ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.16 18:38:39 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Pravesh Bhatt, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 09.03.2026 whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court was dismissed. 2. The instant review petition has been filed merely on the ground that the substantial questions of law proposed in the appeal were not framed and considered while deciding the second appeal. Further the plaintiff raised a ground that though the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding that the suit land is a Government land, which has duly been affirmed by this Court in the judgment under review without impleading the State as a party. The aforesaid plea, however, do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction. 3. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled. Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely because the party seeks a re- appreciation of the questions which have already been considered or seeks to advance arguments which were, or could have been, advanced at the time of hearing of the original proceedings. The review 3 jurisdiction is attracted only where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant; or there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reason recognized in law. 4. In the present case, the judgment under review has considered the material available on record, including the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts had recorded concurrent findings on the basis of the evidence available on record. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, considered the nature of the questions sought to be raised and found that they essentially involved re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. 5. The petitioner, in substance, seeks reconsideration of the very issues which were available for consideration in the second appeal. It is also significant that the review petition seeks, in substance, restoration of the second appeal, framing of substantial questions of law and a fresh adjudication of the matter. Such a course would amount to re-hearing the second appeal on merits. The same is clearly beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 6. It is trite law that under the garb of a review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the entire case afresh so as to convert the 4 review petition into an appeal. In Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Chowdhury, AIR 1995 SC 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The same principle has been reiterated in 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 Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651. 7. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon Jugtu v. Suraj Mal & Others, (2010) 13 SCC 769, also does not advance the case of the petitioner in review jurisdiction. The said decision cannot be read as conferring a right upon a litigant to seek review merely because another view on the issue of necessary parties is sought to be urged. No manifest error in the judgment under review has been demonstrated. 8. The petitioner has also not pointed out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. What is sought is essentially a reconsideration of the conclusions already reached by this Court and a fresh examination of the proposed substantial questions of law. Such exercise would amount to sitting in appeal over the judgment under review, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.. 9. Thus, on consideration of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court finds that no ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is made out. The petitioner has failed to 5 establish any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of any new and important matter or evidence, or any other sufficient reason warranting review of the judgment dated 09.03.2026. 10. Consequently, the review petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu