Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Mishra vs Collector Bilaspur on 12 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11851
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 40 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Mishra S/o Brijbhushan Mishra Aged About 45 Years
R/o Nehru Nagar Behind Jabbal Engineering Bilaspur, Tehsil And
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2026.03.13
10:39:04
+0530
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Shet
Sushil Kuar Mihra)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Joint Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Uttam Kumar Soni S/o Ram Sewak Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o
Maharshi School Road Near Jain Mandir Mangla, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
5 - Radha Mishra W/o Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o
Nehru Nagar, Behind Jabbal Engineering Bilaspur, Tehsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate. For Private Respondent No. 4 :Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 12.03.2026
1. By the present review petition, the petitioner (respondent No.4 in WPC) seeks review of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 765/2025 (Uttam Kumar Soni vs. Collector & Others), whereby the said petition was disposed of observing thus:
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the State, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar/respondent to comply with the order of the Collector within a period of fifteen days, if the same has not been done till date.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.3
2. The review petitioner/respondent No. 4 in the writ petition preferred the review mainly on the ground that while disposing of the writ petition proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the review petitioner (respondent No.4 therein) and the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner by concealing the material facts. According to the review petitioner, pendency of the criminal revision before this Court and MJC before the Civil Court was also not brought to the notice of this Court and as such the order passed by this Court is required to be reviewed. He would submit because of non grant of opportunity of hearing the litigant should not suffer.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein would submit that in fact the Collector has been directed by the Executing Court for execution of judgment and decree passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 01B/2017 and in compliance of the same the matter referred to the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, by Collector who is having jurisdiction in respect of the said issue.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review.
4
5. This Court had directed the Tahsildar to comply with the order passed by the Collector for recovery in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge. On a specific query put by this Court, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that there is no stay operating against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge by any higher forum.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed and, therefore, no interference with the order passed by this Court is warranted.
7. 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, we cannot sit in judgment over our own order. In the order dated 28.01.2025, which is sought to be reviewed, we have set out our complete 5 understanding of the order of the learned Single Judge to arrive at our own reasoned conclusion. We are, therefore not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different.
8. 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).
6
9. The 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.
10. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib