Chattisgarh High Court

Vaishali Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2022

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 27 of 2022
Anuranjna Ekka D/o Late Lgnesh Ekka Aged About 41 Years Profession
Patwari, P.H. No. 18, Head Office Village Janji, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tehsil
Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Permanent R/o Ganesh Nagar,
Nayapara , Mariyamtoli, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
Post Rakhi, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Tehsildar Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Naib Tahsildar Sub Tahsil Seepat , Tahsil Masturi , District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Monika Verma Mishra Deputy Collector , Working On The Post Of Sub
Divisional Officer (R) , Masturi , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7. Manoj Khande Working Tehsildar , Tehsil Masturi , District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
8. Sandhya Namdeo Working Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
9. Tulsi Rathore Tehsildar , Working Additional Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Chandramani Pandey Kanoongo, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
REVP No. 29 of 2022
Vaishali Patel W/o Vijay Kumar Patel, Aged About 33 Years Profession
Patwari, P.H.No. 19, Head Office Village Devri, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tehsil
Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
Post Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Tahsidar, Tehsiul Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Naib Tahsildar, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Monika Verma Mishra, Deputy Collector, Working On The Post Of Sub
Divisional Officer (R), Msturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7. Manoj Khande, Working Tehsildar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
8. Sandhya Namdeo, Working Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2

9. Tulsi Rathore, Tehsildar, Working Additional Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Chandramani Pandey, Kanoongo, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For applicants                            : Mr. Santosh Pandey, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 5                : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Reserved on 20-06-2022
Order delivered on 07-7-2022

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge CAV Order Per N.K. Chandravanshi,

1. Since the grounds raised in both the review petitions are common,

hence they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. Both the applicants holding the post of Patwari had filed two separate

writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 4408/2020 (Anuranjna Ekka -v- State of

CG and others) and Writ Petition No. 4425/2020 (Vaishali Patel -v- State of

CG and others) challenging their transfer and suspension, which were

dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order 3-12-2020 and 26-11-2020

respectively, and the writ appeals bearing Writ Appeal No. 2/2021 and Writ

Appeal No. 3/2021 preferred by the applicants against above orders were also

dismissed by this Court vide judgments dated 2-2-2022. These review

petitions under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code,

1908 (in short 'CPC') and Rule 90(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules,

2007 have been filed by the applicants for review of the judgment/ order

dated 2-2-2022 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No. 2/2021 and Writ

Appeal No. 3/2021, on identical grounds, therefore, they are being decided by

this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that writ appeals preferred

by the applicants against the orders of learned Single Judge, have been

wrongly dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that the applicants had

raised number of issues/points, which have not been dealt with in the

impugned judgments. It is also submitted that there are number of errors and

mistakes in the impugned judgments, which are apparent on the face of

record. He reiterates the grounds mentioned in the review petitions which are

as follows :-

i. This Court seems to have neither considered nor perused the oral and

important submissions, arguments and issues with regard to the subject

matter during the course of hearing of the applicants;

ii. As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central

Board of Trusties -v- Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. [(2018) 8 SCC 443], this

Court ought to have framed necessary issues/points of determination and

then considering the material brought on record by the parties to substantiate

their case, ought to have decided such issues by giving a reasoned finding as

per settled principles of law. Though in the order impugned, there is

discussion about framing of specific issue by this Court, however, no such

important issue was ever framed;

iii. This Court has not considered the parawise points/grounds urged in the

writ petitions/appeals filed by the applicants, not given finding thereon as

required under the law and passed the impugned order in a mechanical

manner ignoring the most important material available on record, hence, the

same is required to be reviewed/ recalled;

iv. As per Order 47 Para - II of the CPC, it is clear that any order can be

reviewed if it suffers from prima-facie error apparent on the face of record;

v. As per Section 114(A) and Order 47(A) of the CPC, review is

permissible when despite there being provision of appeal, the same has not

been preferred. In the present case, the review is being filed because though

the order impugned is appealable before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing

SLP, but the same is not only time taking process but would also be costlier.

Hence, the applicants have filed the present petitions for review/recall of the

impugned orders, which is legal and fundamental right of the applicants;

vi. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that this Court has not

decided the real issue raised by the applicants and overlooking the important

documents filed by the applicants in support of their contention and as such,

the orders impugned are very much re-viewable and recallable;

vii. This Court ought to have framed specific issues on the basis of

pleadings of the respective parties before finally deciding the petitions and

then afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to advance arguments on

those specific issues and then only, it should have decided the petitions.

However, it has not been done in the present case;

viii. This Court has not passed the order in accordance with law. As per law,

since the applicants in the writ petitions had sought for issuance of

Mandamus, this Court ought to have observed in the conclusion that "We

order" but it has not been done;

ix. While passing final orders, this court ought to have mentioned in the

said orders the facts and grounds urged by the applicants, brief parawise

rebuttal of the same by the respondents, main points of the applicants raised

during arguments and their rebuttal by the respondents and then parawise

and reasoned adjudication of the dispute by this Court with the supporting

documents by granting or refusing the reliefs sought for by the applicants;

x. No notice was given to the respondents, who were the most important

and necessary party in this case, by learned Single Bench. In the second

round of the litigation, it was shockingly ignored by the Division Bench, no

sufficient reason was assigned therefor. In this case, private respondents

have not ever been noticed and no justified reason has been assigned

therefor, whereas it was a necessary and contesting party, and according to

settled principle of law, private respondents should have been afforded

opportunity of hearing to put forth its stands, which has not been done;

xi. This Court have also ignored the application for para-wise and

reasoned adjudication of all the points and grounds raised in writ petition for

passing a well speaking and reasoned order, and it has not been decided

prior to final disposal of the petitions. This method is serious mistake;

xii. The impugned order does not speak about the balance of convenience

in the given facts and circumstances of the case as because during the

course of argument, the applicants have put forth the case law and important

interim orders passed by this Court which has been ignored/not mentioned by

the Division Bench in the orders impugned;

xiii. The case laws cited by the respondents and relied upon by this Court in

the impugned order are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case and they seem to have been misinterpreted by this Court;

xiv. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized on the

Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the

narration of bare facts of the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the

legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of

the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned

counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion;

It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind

these principles while disposing of the important writ petition. Such order has

undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties, because it deprived them to

know the reasons as to why one party has won and other had lost. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that we can never countenance the

manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which was

compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ

petition on merits;

xv. The above errors pointed out by the applicants are apparent on the face

of record, hence the impugned orders deserve to be reviewed and liable to be

recalled;

4. While arguing this case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that

although, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has power to transfer a

Patwari, but in both the cases, at the time of transfer of applicants, ban in

transfer had been imposed by the State Government, therefore, their transfer

orders, which were challenged by both the applicants in the writ petitions and

writ appeals, were illegal and this aspect has not been considered in the writ

appeal, which is required to be reviewed by this Court and the orders

impugned be recalled and appropriate order may be passed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his submissions, places

reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of

Trustees and others (supra), Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai

and anr. -v- Pratibha Industries Limited and others, [(2019) 3 SCC 203],

and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Banglore -v- State of

Karnataka [(2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303].

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that both

the applicants have been posted on the post of Patwari and they had

challenged their transfer order and suspension order in writ petitions on

identical grounds, which were dismissed by learned Single Judge. Their writ

appeals were also dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that core

issues involved in those cases were, whether the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue) has power to transfer and suspend a Patwari ? These issues have

been very categorically dealt with and decided by this Court, which do not call

for any review. It is further submitted that the applicants have not stated any

legal grounds, on which, impugned orders can be reviewed. Without any legal

ground, review of the impugned order would amount to reconsideration of the

case, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction envisaged by law

and, therefore, the review petitions filed by the applicants are liable to be

dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record, as well as the orders impugned passed by this Court.

8. Before dealing with the issues raised by the applicants, it is apt to note

that the applicants have moved these petitions under Order 47 read with

Section 114 of the C.P.C., which provides power to the Court for review of its

order. According to these provisions, the Court of review has only limited

jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used in

Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It may allow a review on three specified

grounds, namely -

(1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after

the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge

or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was

passed or order was made;

(2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

(3) for any other sufficient reason.

9. While considering the power of review of a Court under Order 47 Rule 1

of the CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari

Choudhury, [(1995) 1 SCC 170] has held that :

"the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and

have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of

Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The review petition has to be

entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the

face of the record and not on any other ground. An error

apparent 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

points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The

limitation of powers of court under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC is

similar to the jurisdiction available to the High court while

seeking review of the orders under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

10. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, [(2019) 20

SCC 753], Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering ambit and scope of

power of review, has considered its various judgments and observed as

below:-

"15.1. In Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, [(2009) 14 SCC

663 ] 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 [(2000) 6 SCC 224 ] this

Court held:

'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:

(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 face 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 or 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."

15.2. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, [(1999) 9

SCC 596] , it was observed:

"29. In review proceedings, the Tribunal deviated

from the principles laid down above which, we must

say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to

rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had

been finally decided. This, we are constrained to

say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)

(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...."

15.3. Similarly, in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, [(1997) 8

SCC 715] the principles were summarised as under:

"9. 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 of 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 a

limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an

appeal in disguise."

17. We have gone through both the judgments of the High

Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions

on the point. It is well settled that an error which is

required to be detected by a process of reasoning can

hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the

record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error

must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the

exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct.

The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our

considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in

appeal over the earlier decision dated 17-2-2017 (Smriti

Madan Kansagra, (supra). Even assuming that there was

no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier

judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the

decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper

remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in

entertaining the review petition and setting aside the

earlier view dated 17-2-2017......."

11. Thus, perusal of provisions of Order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC and

various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this subject, makes it

clear that a judgment or order may be open to review, if there is a mistake or

an error apparent on the face of record or on other grounds envisaged in

aforesaid provision. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of 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".

Further, a review cannot be claimed or available merely for a fresh hearing or

arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the

power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law

or fact, which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being noted

for establishing it. It may be pointed out that expression of 'any other sufficient

reason' used in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC means, a reason sufficiently

analogous to those specified in the rule.

12. Considering the aforesaid aspects of law and judgments rendered by

Hon'ble Apex Court, if we consider the submissions and grounds raised by

the applicants in the instant case, we do not find any apparent error or

mistake on the face of record which inspires this Court to review the

impugned orders. It is also pertinent to mention here that, in impugned orders,

in opening paragraphs, after referring facts of the case and submissions made

by learned counsel, in para 8, it has been specifically mentioned that before

passing of impugned orders, both the learned counsel for the parties were

heard and materials available on record were perused with utmost

circumspection, therefore, it cannot be said that points raised by learned

counsel for the applicants have not been considered.

13. The core issues involved in both the writ appeals were, whether the Sub

Divisional Officer (Revenue) has power to transfer and to suspend a Patwari

or not, and these issues have been considered and decided on the basis of

the law governing the field. During the course of argument, learned counsel

for the applicants also conceded that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

holds such power. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants

that ban on transfer imposed by the State Government was prevailing, despite

that, the applicants were transferred, therefore, the order of Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue), which was under challenge in the writ petitions and in the

writ appeals, were illegal and this aspect of the matter has not been

considered in the writ appeals. It seems that this is the main grievance of the

applicants for calling of review of the impugned orders, but this aspect of the

matter has also been considered and dealt with categorically, in paras 16, 17

and 18 of the impugned orders referring various judgments of Hon'ble Apex

Court.

14. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed various orders passed by

learned Single Judge in various cases pertaining to transfer of Patwaris

wherein stay has been granted for limited period i.e. till the disposal of the

representation made in this regard, but it is well settled that every case should

be dealt with and evaluated on its own facts & merits, and writ appeals have

been considered and decided on the basis of their own facts and merits in

accordance with law. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with in

para 20 of the impugned orders.

15. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants was

not able to show the error or mistake in the impugned orders, apparent on

the face of record. Only saying that there is error or mistake apparent on the

face of record is not sufficient to review the orders.

16. The grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicants indicate that

the applicants are not satisfied with the outcome of the impugned orders, but

such dis-satisfaction with the result cannot be a ground of review.

17. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra),

referred by learned counsel for the applicants, Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that, being a superior court of record, the jurisdiction to recall its own

order is inherent in the High Court. There is no dispute that in appropriate

cases, the High Court has power to review its order. Other cases referred by

learned counsel for the applicants have no relevancy in respect of review

jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the rulings cited by him are not helpful to him

in view of facts of instant cases.

18. In view of aforesaid discussion and observations, we do not find any

ground raised by the applicants, which may require review the impugned

orders.

19. Consequently, we find that instant review petitions have no merit.

Accordingly the review petitions are hereby dismissed.

No cost.

                            Sd/-                                          Sd/-
                 (Arup Kumar Goswami)                             (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                        Chief Justice                                    Judge




Pathak/-