BILASPUR (C.G.) v. Tehsit
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 47 r. 1
Judgment
Amar Singh S/o Shri Kunderam fefendant Satnami, aged about 68 years, R/o Village- Tehsil- Bandnu, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) REVIEW PETITION OF ORDER DATED 03.09.2012, PASSED IN CONTEMPTCASEJ>L0^4S[/2010 "BHAGE LAL V/S AMAR SINGH HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 181 of 2012 APPLICANTS/PETITIONER RESPONDENT Bhagelal Vs. Amar Singh (Petition for review off he order dated 03.09.2012 passed in Contempt Case (C ). No. 49/2010( Bhage Lal Vs. Amar Singh)) •-^ (By Circulation in Chaniber) SB: HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J JUDGMENT/ORDER (01.02.2013) This review application under Rule 87/90 of the High Court of 1. Chhattisgarh Rules 2007 has been placed for consideration in the Chamber in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 90 of the said Rules.
The applicant has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 03.09.2012 whereby this Court dismissed the contempt petition preferred by him. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.09.2012, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the applicant. However, the said order was passed on merits after perusal of the record and after hearing leamed counsel for the respondent at length. The prayer made in the review petition appears to be 3. misconceived. The applicant has not pointed out any manifest en-or on the face of record nor has brought to the notice of this court any new facts which could not be produced earlier. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings 4. are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the applicants by filing this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is also weU settled that under the garb of review petition, the appUcants should not be permitted to argue fhe entire case afresh to converting the review petition into an which would amount appeal and the saine is not permissible in law, as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sm.t. SSeera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmja.la. Kumar Chowdhary AIR 1995 SC 455; Lily Thomas etc., Vs. Union oflndia and others AIR 2000 SC 1650; AJit Kumar Rath
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.