Smt. Asha Shukla vs Smt. Shanti Tiwari
2023 Latest Caselaw 661 Chatt

                                    1




                                                                      NAFR
      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              REVP No. 8 of 2023

1. Smt. Asha Shukla W/o Shri Vivek Shukla Aged About 48 Years R/o House
   No. 35, Near House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar(Jagdalpur),
   Chhattisgarh.

2. Shri Rajat Shukla S/o Vivek Shukla Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 35,
   Near House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Rajni Shukla D/o Vivek Shukla Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 35, Near
   House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Renuka Shukla D/o Vivek Shukla Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 35,
   Near House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Satyavati Shukla Wd/o Late Shri Ravi Shankar Shukla Aged About 58
   Years R/o House No. 35, Near House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar
   (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

6. Vipin Shukla S/o Late Shri Ravi Shankar Shukla Aged About 46 Years R/o
   House No. 35, Near House Of Nayapara, Jagdalpur District Bastar
   (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Petitioners

                                 Versus

1. Smt. Shanti Tiwari W/o Shri R.K. Tiwari Aged About 68 Years R/o House Of
   Dr. Kanaklata Mishra, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District
   Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Sarita Mishra Wd/o Late Ajay Kumar Mishra Aged About 50 Years R/o
   Balaji Ward, Infront Of Bansal Nursing Home, Jagdalpur, District
   Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

3. Vinita Mishra D/o Late Ajay Kumar Mishra Aged About 32 Years R/o Balaji
   Ward, Infront Of Bansal Nursing Home, Jagdalpur, District
   Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh.

4. Subodh Shukla S/o Late Shri Shashi Shankar Shukla Aged About 42 Years
   R/o House No. 35, Nayapara, Beside Unnwala House, Jagdalpur
   Chhattisgarh.

5. Ashish Shukla S/o Late Shri Shashi Shankar Shukla Aged About 38 Years R/o
   House No. 35, Nayapara, Beside Unnwala House, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

6. Vinit Shukla S/o Late Shri Sahshi Shankar Shukla Aged About 36 Years R/o
   House No. 35, Nayapara, Beside Unnwala House, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

7. Smt. Sharda Shukla Wd/o Late Shashi Shankar Shukla Aged About 59 Years
                                    2




     R/o House No. 35, Nayapara, Beside Unnwala House, Jagdalpur
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondents




     For Petitioners          :        Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate



               Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

              Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                          Order on Board


Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

01/02/2023

Heard.

1. The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of

order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the

petitioners wherein the challenge was made to the order passed

by the Rent Control Tribunal was upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that one of the

member of the Tribunal is the Office bearer of a political party

and it is well settled law that such person cannot be appointed

as a member of the Tribunal. He further submits that since that

person itself has passed the order as member of the Rent

Control Tribunal, therefore, the order is not sustainable.

3. We have considered the grounds raised by petitioners. Since

it is a review petition seeking review of the order dated

11.11.2022, to such an review the grounds which are

enumerated in Order 47 of CPC are required to be established.

The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal

No. 3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V.

Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, had laid down that the judgment

should be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake apparent on the

fact 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 fact of the record justifying the court to exercise its

power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. As held that in exercise

of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for

an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held

that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an

error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected

by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the

review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot

be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.

4. Applying the aforesaid principle, the review petition is dismissed.

         Sd/-                                                      Sd/-


  (Goutam Bhaduri)                                  (N.K. Chandravanshi )

              Judge                                                Judge


Jyoti