1 2026:CGHC:16666-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No.43 of 2026 1 - Kailash Malghani S/o Bedram Malghani Aged About 49 Years R/o Khaparganj (Masanganj), Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur,, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - R.C. Lalwani S/o Pratap Rai Aged About 65 Years 2 - Smt. Manju Lalwani W/o R.C. Lalwani Aged About 61 Years Both R/o H. No. B- 20, Century Colony Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Per Sachin Singh Rajput J. 10/04/2026 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment/order passed by this Court dated Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 02.09.2025 in FA No.120/2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. 2. The Registry has pointed out certain defects including deficit court fees of Rs.3,71,225/- on the memo of review petition. The review petition is barred by limitation of 41 days. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is an application under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 151 of CPC. Thus, petitioner may be exempted from payment of court fees. 4. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing the judgment and decree of specific performance in favour of the petitioner, the respondents continuously failed to abide by the same and despite repeated requests by the petitioner, the respondents failed to execute sale deed, whereas the petitioner is always ready to perform his part of contract but the respondents refused to give possession of the suit property to the petitioner and the sale deed is incomplete without delivery of possession. Therefore, the petitioner prays for review of the order under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that all the grounds raised by the petitioner before this Court in the appeal has already been considered and no new ground has been raised before this Court in this review petition. Therefore, 3 the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment under review. 7. On due consideration, we are not inclined to allow the application under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Hence it is dismissed. Thus review petition is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits, it is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re- appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. 8. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the 4 impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Judge Nirala