Chattisgarh High Court
Indrajit Singh Sahni vs Shri V.K. Shukla on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.06
19:01:58
+0530
2025:CGHC:38956-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 207 of 2025
1 - Indrajit Singh Sahni S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni Aged
About 69 Years R/o Gagan Service Center, Ring Road No.2,
Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant / Appellant No.1)
2 - Ganandeep Sing Sahni S/o Shri Indrajit Singh Sahni Aged About
29 Years R/o Gagan Service Center Ring Road No/2, Tatibandh,
Raipur (C.G.) (Defendat/ Appellant No.2)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Shri V.K. Shukla S/o Late Shri Rn Shukla Aged About 64 Years R/o
House No.01, Shreeji Kalpatur, Near Water Tank, Amlidih, Tehsil And
District- Raipur , Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff/ Respondent)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06.08.2025
1. By this present review petition, the petitioners are seeking
review/recall of order dated 04.07.2025 passed by this Court in
WP227 No. 585/2025 and also prayed that the matter be
remanded back to learned Rent Control Tribunal Raipur for
consideration of the appeal of the petitioners on its own
merits and in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite
objections raised by the petitioners neither the same was
considered nor addressed by the learned Rent Control
Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners
seek recall/review of order dated 04.07.2025, which is sought
to be under review and also seeking remand of the matter to
the learned Rent Control Tribunal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
review petition as also the order under review.
4. Bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the
same has been passed in presence of the counsel for the
parties by considering all the facts and grounds raised by the
parties. The petitioner failed to establish any manifest error
on the face of the order under review.
5. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and 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, we are not satisfied
that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is
aggrieved, the remedy is different.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep
