Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18741-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 76 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o B D Gupta Aged About 46 Years Current Resident- F403 Raheja Residency Avanti Vihar Raipur C.G. 492001, Permanent Resident- Gupta And Company Main Road Dalli-Rajhara Balod C.G., Email- [email protected] Mobile- 9406409579 versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - Chief Executive Officer (Presently Promoted To Director In Charge) Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 490021, Email [email protected] 2 - General Manager (Mines Io And F) Ioc (Position Changed To Chief General Manager Mines) Rajhara Mines, Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Dalli-Rajhara Balod C.G. 3 - Deputy General Manager Hirri Mines 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 490021 4 - The Cpio Steel Authority Of India Limited, Office Of The Dgm (Personal) Room No. 250, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 490021, Email [email protected] ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (In Person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/04/2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by this Court in WA No. 82/2024 by which this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the writ appellant is having alternative remedy in the form of arbitration to dissolved the dispute. 3. The review petitioner in person would submit that on 22.06.2024 the petitioner filed an arbitration application No. 16/2024 before the learned
Decision
Single Judge of this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2024 and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. P. Sharma was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The notice in the arbitration proceeding was issued and on 21.01.2025 the learned sole arbitrator directed the parties to submit their consent letter related to fee for arbitration and the case was fixed on 07.02.2025 on that day the respondent No. 1 & 3 had not appeared and filed an application for deletion of the name of the respondent No.4 and disagree with the fee structure of the learned sole arbitrator whereas the petitioner had given his consent. On 04.03.2025 the learned sole arbitrator has terminated the arbitration proceedings in view of the disagreement with the fee structure, therefore, the review petitioner has filed the present review for recalling of the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 82/2024. 4. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the order under review. 5. At this juncture it would be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to review. 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: 3 "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (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." 6. 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 4 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 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.” 7. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 9. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “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 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.” 5 10. 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.” 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.” 12. In the present review petitions, the petitioner in person has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 82/2024. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the said WA No. 82/2024 was decided by this Court on 18.03.2024 after discussing the facts and considering the material annexed with the petition which was available on record. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 18.03.2024, therefore, the prayer sought for reviewing of the order dated 18.03.2024 and restoring the WA No.82/2024 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 13. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.28 18:32:47 +0530