Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Kumar Rathore vs The State Bank Of India (S.B.I) on 12 September, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:46696
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 248 of 2025
1 - Neeraj Kumar Rathore S/o. Shri Khem Prakash Rathore Aged About 25
Years Working As Student, R/o. Gudi Chowk, Dumarpara, District- Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Bank Of India (S.B.I) Through Regional Manager, Regional
Business Office (R.B.O.), Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The State Bank Of India Through The Chief Manager (Credit), Regional
Business Office, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The State Bank Of India Through The Branch Manager, Nayapara,
Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The District Magistrate/ Collector, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhaveer Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
12/09/2025
1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 10.07.2025,
passed in WA No. 287 of 2025, by which this Court has dismissed the
writ appeal filed by the review petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the review
petitioner had participated in e-Auction of the subject house and was
successful bidder on the rate quoted by him as Rs. 25 lakhs and
immediately deposited Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the respondents/Bank. Vide
letter dated 08.08.2023, he was informed that he has to deposit 25%
of the bid amount by 09.08.2023 and the remaining 75% till
23.08.2023. On account of non-deposition of the said amount, the
respondents/Bank has decided not to sell the subject property to the
petitioner and communicated the same on 28.01.2025. The said
communication dated 28.01.2025 was challenged in WPC No. 917 of
2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2025 directing the
respondents/Bank to take a fresh decision on the cancellation of sale
intimation dated 05.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that the respondents/Bank had already secured the sale
amount and form of FDR and the petitioner cannot be punished for his
no fault. After passing of the order dated 10.07.2025 by this Court in
WA No. 287 of 2025, certain judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court have been found, which could not be cited during the hearing of
the said appeal. He would also submit that in between the period of
08.08.2023 and October, 2023, the petitioner deposited total sum of
Rs. 25.80 lakhs in fixed deposit with the respondents/Bank, whereas
the respondents/Bank have informed first time on 28.01.2025 that the
possession of the subject property will not be delivered to the
petitioner. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the matter requires review of the order dated
10.07.2025.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents
opposes and submits that the order dated 10.07.2025, passed by this
Court is just and proper, which needs no interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the review petition and writ appeal.
5. Perusal of the order under review would show that it is a bi-party order.
Grounds raised in the review petition that certain new facts have been
discovered after passing of the order dated 10.07.2025 and as per the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "V. S.
Palanivel v. P. Shriram" 2024 INSC 659 and "IDBI Bank Limited v.
Ramswaroop Daliya" 2024 INSC 780, the order dated 10.07.2025
may be reviewed. The petitioner could not demonstrate as to what new
facts have been discovered after passing the order dated 10.07.2025.
The facts and consideration in the judgment cited by learned counsel
for the review petitioner in case of "V.S. Palanivel" and "IDBI Bank
Limited" (supra) are different than the facts of the present case.
6. 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.
7. Section 114 of the CPC vests the power of review in the Courts, and
Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC provides 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."
8. In the matter of "M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi", 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "A
plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is
like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an
invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and
reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the
verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace."
9. In the matter of "Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan
and others" [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
"the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered
by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the
case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court
would be final,cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a
substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so."
10. 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."
11. 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."
12. In the matter of "Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa" reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para-8 held as under:-
"8. The main question that arises for our consideration
in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is
whether there is any error apparent on the face of the
record so as to enable the superior court to call for the
records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or
whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so
apparent on the face of the record", which can only be
corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all."
13. In the present review petition, the review petitioner has prayed for
recalling of the order passed by this Court on 10.07.2025, passed in
WA No. 287 of 2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner on the
ground raised in the review petition are appears to be misconceived.
Further, the case of WA No. 287 of 2025 is decided by this Court on
10.07.2025 after discussing the facts and going through the
documents available on the record and there is no error apparent on
the face of the record. Therefore, the prayer sought for recalling of the
order dated 10.07.2025, passed in WA No. 287 of 2025 by way of this
review petition is not permissible and in the opinion of this Court, no
ground is made out for review.
14. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
