1 2026:CGHC:14516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 428 of 2025 Nanabai W/o Laxman, Aged About 55 Years Agriculturist, R/o Village- Chandanu, Tahsil-Bemetara, District-Bemetara, (C.G.) (Original Decree Holder/respondent No. 1 Wp227/1171/2024). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bhagwati S/o Bachan, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village-Chetuwa, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Judgment Debtor No.1). 2 - Kumari Bai W/o Bhagwati Aged About 35 Years (Now 60 Years), R/o Village-Chetuwa, Tahsil-Berla, District-Durg, Now District-Bemetara (C.G.) (Judgment Debtor No.2). 3 - Smt. Punni Bai D/o Smt. Bachan, W/o Jugru Satnami Aged About 48 Years R/o Village-Rabeli, P.O.-Ranka, Tahsil And District-Bemetara (C.G.) (Judgment Debtor No.3). 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Collector, Durg, Now District-Bemetara (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Pane Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 27.03.2026 1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought 2 recall/modification of the order dated 16.07.2025, passed in WP227/1171/2024. 2. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Hon’ble Court, in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the impugned order, has erred in holding that the decree dated 23.07.2016 is not executable. He would submit that the civil suit in question is not merely declaratory in nature; rather, a decree of possession has also been passed against the review petitioner, which is executable. He would further submit that the learned trial court has granted a decree of declaration & permanent injunction, as the plaintiff was found to be in possession. He would also submit that the decree of declaration and permanent injunction is executable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would contend that it is a settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it has been held that a decree of permanent injunction is executable and enforceable, and the judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to render such a decree nugatory. He further placed reliance in the matter of Shankar Kumar Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2022) 7 SCC 333, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that decrees passed by competent courts cannot be reduced to mere paper decrees, and it is the duty of the courts to ensure effective execution, particularly in cases involving injunctions. 3 3. Mr. Das argues that the findings recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, treating the decree as wholly non-executable, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The said findings fail to consider the operative portion of the decree, particularly Clause 2, as well as the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the decree passed by the learned trial court makes it clear that there was no decree of possession. The trial court has passed a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on merits, thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded in the first appeal by filing the present review petition. 7. 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- 4 (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 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." 8. 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 5 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.” 9. 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: 6 (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. (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. 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 7 12. The learned Trial Court has granted decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction & there is no decree of possession. The review petitioner has misconstrued language of decree, therefore contention made by the Mr. Das that the decree of possession is executable, appears to be misconceived. 13. Further, this Court had already considered the scope and nature of the decree while passing the impugned order. 14. The review petition, in substance, seeks re-appreciation of the same issues, which is impermissible in law. 15. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The review petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim