Smt. Ful Bai v. Shanti Lal Yadav

CGHC010376332026

2026:CGHC:44546

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 375 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ful Bai W/o Shri Kanti Kumar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Kanti Kumar S/o Shri Bhurwa Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shanti Lal Yadav S/o Bhurwa Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Shivshankar S/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.10.15 10:23:19 +0530 4 - Pushpalata Wd/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Laxmi Kumari D/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) Hon'ble Shri

Bibhu Datta Guru

, Judge

By circulation in chamber

14.10.2026

¶1The matter is taken up for consideration in Chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

¶2The present review petition has been filed by the applicants seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2026 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 548 of 2025, whereby the second appeal preferred by the applicants was dismissed at the motion stage, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶3The present review petition has been filed by the defendant mainly on the ground that the substantial question of law as proposed in the memo of appeal has not been considered and also raised a ground that this court has not considered issue of alternative statutory mode of proof under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶4In the present case, the grounds raised by the review petitioner essentially seek reconsideration of the very issues which were canvassed before this Court in the Second appeal and were duly argued by Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is the review petitioner herein. The judgment under review was passed after hearing the learned counsel at length. However, in the present review petition, Ms. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the review petitioner. There is no satisfactory explanation on record for the change in representation. The review petitioner has failed to establish any manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the order under review.

¶5The scope of review jurisdiction is limited. A review cannot be sought merely for re-hearing or re-appreciation of the issues which have already been considered and adjudicated upon. Unless the petitioner demonstrates an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within his knowledge, or any other sufficient reason, interference in review jurisdiction is not warranted.

¶6Be that as it may, the Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore I am not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different.

¶7It 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).

¶8The ground 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 order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction.

¶9As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

Shoaib