Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:45800
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 263 of 2025
Vijay Singh Thakur S/o Late M R Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward
No. 6, Schoolpara, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Through
Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Commissioner Tribal Welfare Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through Its Secretary,
Nirvachan Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VASANT KUMAR
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate
KUMAR 2025.09.10
18:09:27
For the State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA
+0530
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
09.09.2025
1. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner
seeking review of the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by this Court in
WP(C) No.2590 of 2025 (Vijay Singh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
& Ors.), by which this Court had dismissed the said writ petition filed by
the review petitioner herein, on the ground that :
"7. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner is claiming that the
provisions of Article 243 ZC the Municipal Bodies cannot function
in the Scheduled-V areas of Chhattisgarh till date the Parliament of
India has not enacted any law extending the provision of Part- IX-A
of the Constitution of India to the Scheduled Areas. However, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has earlier dismissed the same issue raised
by the present petitioner in the petition styled as PIL observing that
no Bill has been passed by the Parliament to extend the provisions
of Part-IX-A of the Constitution of India to Scheduled areas, the
provision of Part-IX A do not extend to Scheduled Areas. When the
present petitioner again filed the WPPIL No. 30 of 2025 the query
of maintainability was pointed out by the Hon'ble Division Bench
but the counsel for the petitioner could not give any satisfactory
reply as a result of which the petition was dismissed as withdrawn
and the liberty was given to the petitioner to approach before the
appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. So, now the
petitioner has again filed the present petition with the same issue.
8. This Court observes that the counsel for the petitioner has
wrongly assumed the WPC roaster as the appropriate forum for
redressal of his grievance. This Court does not find any good
ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the present petition is
dismissed."
2. 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."
3. 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:-
"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."
4. From perusal of the order, which is sought to be reviewed, it transpires
that the same has been passed by this Court after hearing counsel for the
petitioner and on the basis of materials available on record. It further
transpires that the petitioner has sought rehearing of the writ petition by
way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no
error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that no ground is made out for review.
5. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
