1 CGHC010163092024 2026:CGHC:42029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 471 of 2024 Hardayal Singh Dhillon S/o Shri J.S. Dhillon Aged About 58 Years R/o Plot No. 27, Model Town, Near Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Sunil Bhalla S/o Shyamlal Bhalla R/o Shop No. 252, C Market, Sector-6, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 26/09/2026 Heard. 1. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 26- B/2021, whereby an application under Section 114 read with Sections 152 and 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.29 18:57:42 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had prosecuted a civil suit for recovery of ₹2,00,000/- before the learned trial court bearing Civil Suit No. 26-B/2021. The said civil suit was decided vide its judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022, and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Considering the non-consideration of the evidence led by the plaintiff in its true perspective, the plaintiff has filed an application under section 114 read with Sections 152 and 151 of CPC for review of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022, but the learned trial court has rejected the application holding that there is no error apparent on the face of record and the review application is not tenable. He would further submit that the bank account details have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit, but the learned trial court has considered that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the said bank account details belong to the bank account of the plaintiff. Along with the review application, he had submitted the necessary documents, but the same has not been considered and the application filed by the plaintiff has been rejected. Therefore, there is sufficient ground for review of the impugned judgment and decree, and the impugned order passed by learned trial court suffers from perversity and illegality which is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of record, and the learned trial court has rightly passed the judgment and decree by dismissing the suit. If the plaintiff has any grievance for non-consideration of the evidence, he may file 3 his appeal before the competent forum. Therefore, the present writ petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2023, by which the application for review of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022 has been rejected. The judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022 is the judgment passed by learned trial court on merits of the case, for which the petitioner has a remedy under Section 96 of the CPC for filing of the regular appeal before the competent forum. 6. The plaintiff has filed the application for review of its judgment on the ground that there is non-appreciation of the evidence produced by the plaintiff and the bank account details have not been considered in its right perspective. The ground for review, as has been claimed by the plaintiff, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be ground to review the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court. 7. In the matter of “Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa” reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or 4 whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 8. 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.” 9. The scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review is limited to the grounds prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and cannot be exercised as an appellate power. Para 10 of the said judgment reads as under:- “10. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading 5 of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of power of review.” 10. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, the ground raised by the petitioner that the evidence led by him and the bank account details were not properly appreciated or considered, essentially seeks re-appreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Such an exercise is beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting interference with the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022 by way of review. 11. It is also evident that the petitioner has a remedy of filing a regular appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2022. The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a substitute for the appellate remedy. 6 12. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned trial Court. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved