Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Hem Bai vs Smt. Anusuiya Bai on 24 April, 2025

                                          1




        Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
      SINGH
                                                            2025:CGHC:18692
                                                                            NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 REVP No. 201 of 2024

1 - Smt. Hem Bai D/o Kuwanru Ram Satnami Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
Birkona, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, (In Original Petition
Respondent No. 2)                                                    ... Petitioner(s)

versus 1 - Smt. Anusuiya Bai W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Miri Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Birkona, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner In Original Petition)

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Department D K S Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

4 - Project Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

5 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6 - Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Review Petitioner : Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocate For respective respondents : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

24.04.2025

1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioner has sought

recall/modification of the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in WPS

No.1241/2011 whereby the order passed by the Collector dated

29.05.2009 was set aside/quashed.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the petitioner

submitted her application form for the post of Aanganbadi worker on

23.06.2008 whereas the desertion certificate was issued by the Sarpanch

and Secretary of Gram Panchayat on 22.06.2008 whereas in para 15 of

the order passed in WPS No.1241 of 2011, it is observed that the applica-

tion was submitted on 20.06.2008, thus the finding is contrary to the

record. She would next submit that on 23.06.2008, the petitioner was not

having 8th pass mark-sheet but later on, it was rectified by the Board and it

was submitted before the respondent authorities at the time of counseling

when opportunity was afforded to deciding objection before publication of

select list. She would pray to recall order dated 24.06.2024 passed in

WPS No.1241 of 2011.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Rajput. He

would submit that on 23.06.2008 when application form was submitted,

the petitioner was not having requisite qualification. He would further

submit that in the application form, the review petitioner has stated that

Class-8th fail mark-sheet or pass certificate of class-8th was submitted on

17.07.2008. He would contend that the earlier petition was dismissed on

two counts first; an application form was submitted by the review

petitioner on 20.06.2008 and the desertion certificate was issued on

22.06.2008 and second, the petitioner was not having requisite

qualification i.e. 8th pass at the time of submission of application. He

would submit that if one of the ground for dismissal goes, another is still

against the petitioner. He would lastly submit that the review petition

deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the

State would support the submissions made by Mr. Khetrapal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials/documents available on the record.

6. A perusal of the documents would show that the desertion certificate was

signed by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat on 22.06.2008

and an application form was submitted by the petitioner on 23.06.2008. At

the time of hearing of the writ petition, relevant documents were not

produced by the review petitioner and the date of 20.06.2008 is apparent

from perusal of the application form submitted by the review petitioner

therefore, such observation was made.

7. With regard to academic qualification, on 20.06.2008 or 23.06.2008, the

review petitioner was not having 8th pass certificate and it is specifically

stated in the application form itself. Later on, she approached the Court

and her mark-sheet was rectified and thus, the observation made with

regard to mark-sheet of Class 8th, there is no infirmity.

8. It appears that the review petitioner is making prayer for rehearing of the

writ petition which is not permissible according to the provisions of Order

47 of Rule 1 of the CPC.

9. On due consideration of the above-stated pleadings 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 petitioner cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take

up new pleas in the review petition.

10. 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.

11.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."

12. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others

reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-9 held

as under:-

13. "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 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."

14. 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:

(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.