1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar v. Review
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2025:CGHC:4285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 292 of 2024 1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, H.Q. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh--------- Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition 2. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, H.Q. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh--------------- Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition Versus ... Review Petitioners • J.P. Agrawal S/o K.R. Agrawal Aged About 73 Years Priyadarshani Nagar, Agrawal Colony H.No. 123- Behind A-44, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh---------- Petitioner in Writ Petition ... Respondent For Review Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
seeking a review of the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1732/2013. 2. Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the review
Arguments
Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. The review petitioners have filed this review petition under the provisions of Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007
Decision
petitioners would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed on the ground that the ACRs of the years 1993 to 1997 were not communicated to him. He would further submit that the petitioners had made a representation against the adverse entries made in the ACRs of 1992 and 1993 and the same was rejected by the authority concerned vide letter dated 18.12.1993 on the representation 2 made by the respondent. He would also submit that correct facts were not brought before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, therefore, the order requires review/recall. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in para- 7, it was observed that the ACRs pertaining to years 1993 and 1994 were not found up to the mark and the employer could not produce the documents to demonstrate that those ACRs were communicated to the petitioners. He would further submit that the ACR of 1994 was never communicated to the petitioners. He would also submit that these facts were within the knowledge of the review petitioners at the time of hearing of the writ petition, but those facts were not brought to the notice of the Court and the grounds raised by the review petitioners cannot be a ground for review of the order as the review petitioners are praying for re-hearing of the writ petition which has already been disposed of. 4. I have perused all the grounds/pleadings raised in the instant review petition. 5. On consideration of the above-stated grounds and other grounds raised in the instant review petition, which are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The review petitioners cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take up new pleas in the review petition. 6. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 3 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- (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 reported 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 4 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.” 9. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 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: 5 (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, 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. The case [W.P.(S) No. 1732/2013] was decided by this Court after 6 discussing the entire facts and going through the records available and in light of the principles of law laid down through various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for rehearing/recalling of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1732/2013 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti