Chattisgarh High Court
The South Eastern Coalfield Limied vs Narendra Prasad Pandey on 5 February, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
REKHA SINGH
2025:CGHC:6511
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 262 of 2024
1 - The South Eastern Coalfield Limied Seepat Road Bilaspur Cg Through
The Chairman Cum Managing Director Secl, Bilaspur C.G.
2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief General Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Ocm Distt. Anuppur M.P.
4 - Dy. General Manager (Mining) Sam Jamuna Open Cast Mines, Kotma
Distt. Anupur M.P.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Narendra Prasad Pandey S/o Dharam Das Pandey Aged About 50 Years
Working As Fitter, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Jamuna Ocm Distt.
Anuppur M.P.
... Respondent(s)
For Review Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
05.02.2025
1. By way of this review petition, the review petitioners have sought
recall/modification of the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WPS No.1493
of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the Non-applicant was allowed
directing the respondent authorities to make payment of all dues including
the arrears of salary from the date of promotion i.e. 04.10.2008 till its
realization.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners who are seeking modification/
review of the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in WPS No.1493 of 2014
submits that the Non-applicant/respondent suppressed the material facts
while arguing Writ Petition No.1493 of 2014. He would argue that this fact
could not be brought before this Court when the writ petition was being ar-
gued and subsequently disposed of, therefore, an immediate review of the
order dated 28.08.2024 would be expedient in the interest of justice.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent argues that this contention was not raised at the time of the
argument in the writ petition; therefore, this petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents
available on the record.
5. There were no such pleadings in the writ petition filed by the review
petitioners and no document was placed on record to prove the same.
6. 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 petitioners cannot be allowed to commit a volte-face and take
up new pleas in the review petition.
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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:-
10. "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."
11. 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.
(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.
12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State
Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dismissed the petition and held that "The scope of review is limited
and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate
and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and
decided."
13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC
1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "even the change in law of or
subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
14. In the present review petition, the petitioners have prayed for the recall of
the order passed by this Court in WPS No.1493 of 2014. The prayer
made by the review petitioners appears to be misconceived. Further, the
case [WPS No.1493 of 2014] was decided by this Court on 28.08.2024
after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on
the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record,
therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in
WPS No.1493 of 2014 by way of this review petition is not permissible,
and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review.
15. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Rekha
