1 / 5 CGHC010353852026 2026:CGHC:41632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 299 of 2026 (Arising out of the order passed in WPS No. 2713/2026 dated 17.04.2026) • Uniworth Ltd. (Woolworth India Ltd.) 923-945 Urla Growth Centre, Post Sarora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Manager, Rajesh Singh, S/o Late Reaghuvir Singh Thakur, Aged About 58 Years, Working As Manager Uniworth Ltd. (Woolworth India Ltd.), 923-945 Urla Growth Centre, Post Sarora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 4) ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 1) 2. The Controller Payment Of Gratuity-Cum-Labour Court Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 2) 3. The Tahsildar Dharsinwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 3) 4. Maal Jamadar Tahsil Office Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 5) 5. The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 6) 6. Kamal Sharma S/o Kesharlal Sharma Aged About 77 Years R/o M I G 1053 Veerswarkar Nagar, Heerapur, Post Heerapur, P.S. Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. R.N. Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24/09/2026 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed in WPS No. 2713/2026, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6/ petitioner therein was disposed off directing Respondent No. 3 to conclude the proceeding PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 pending before him in Case No. 202503111700107/A-76/2022-23 within stipulated time. 2. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that the application filed by applicant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the concerned Controlling Authority/ Assistant Labour Commissioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 22.07.2022 is required to be adjudicated before attachment proceedings but till date it has not been adjudicated upon. Respondent No. 3 has proceeded to issue an order for attachment dated 17.08.2026 in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court vide impugned order dated 17.04.2026. He submits that if the attachment proceeding is completed pending the application under Order IX Rule 13, it will be without proper opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent -State would submit that he is not making any submission on merits of claim of applicant as the dispute is between the private parties. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The contention of learned counsel for applicant in this review petition is that the applicant’s application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is pending consideration before the Controlling Authority/ Assistant Labour Commissioner which is directed to be decided by the authority. 7. This Court in WPS No. 2713 of 2026 vide order dated 17.04.2026, which is put to be reviewed by the applicant in this review petition, has passed following order: 3 / 5 “1. Learned State Counsel submits that pursuant to order dated 02.04.2026 of this Court, he has sought instruction in the matter and according to instruction received from respondent No.3, due to SIR work, the proceeding of Case No.202503111700107/A-76/2022- 23 could not be completed. He submits that now proceeding are resumed and it will be completed within further period of four months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that anxiety of petitioner is that the proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act is concluded at the earliest. 3. In view of above submission of learned counsel for respective parties, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to conclude the proceeding pending before him under Case No.202503111700107/A-76/2022-23, subject matter of this writ petition, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.” 8. This Court has not decided the writ petition on merits but considering the submission made by the respective parties therein has issued direction to respondent No. 3/ Tahsildar to conclude the pending proceeding before it which as per submission of counsel for the Respondent/State could not be completed due to S.I.R. work and subsequently proceeding was resumed. After considering the documents available in record as well as the arguments advanced by the parties, the order under review was passed. 9. It is well settled in law that review application can be entertained only when there is error apparent on the face of record. In the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. The power of review is not an inherent power and must be exercised strictly within the parameters prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of review is extremely limited and can be invoked only 4 / 5 in cases where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or where there exists some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A review cannot be sought merely on the ground that the decision is erroneous on merits. 10. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require a long-drawn process of reasoning or re- appreciation of evidence to establish it. If the error alleged has to be detected by a process of reasoning or by re-examining the factual matrix and legal position already considered, the same would fall within the domain of an appellate jurisdiction and not review. The review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and substitute a different view merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455. 11. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors . reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus: “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 12. Considering the grounds raised by learned counsel for applicant in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of 5 / 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioner failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 17.04.2026 passed in WPS No. 2713/2026. 13. Accordingly, review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn/ JUDGE