Sunil Kumar Mishra vs Collector Bilaspur
2026 Latest Caselaw 392 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sunil Kumar Mishra vs Collector Bilaspur on 12 March, 2026

                                                          1




                                                                        2026:CGHC:11851


                                                                                       NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                               REVP No. 40 of 2026

                      Sunil Kumar Mishra S/o Brijbhushan Mishra Aged About 45 Years

                      R/o Nehru Nagar Behind Jabbal Engineering Bilaspur, Tehsil And
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHOAIB
SHOAIB   ANWAR
ANWAR    Date:
         2026.03.13
         10:39:04
         +0530



                      District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Shet

                      Sushil Kuar Mihra)

                                                                               ... Petitioner(s)

                                                      versus



                      1 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh



                      2 - Joint Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh



                      3 - Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh



                      4 - Uttam Kumar Soni S/o Ram Sewak Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o

                      Maharshi School Road Near Jain Mandir Mangla, District Bilaspur

                      Chhattisgarh



                      5 - Radha Mishra W/o Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o

                      Nehru Nagar, Behind Jabbal Engineering Bilaspur, Tehsil And District

                      Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                    2

                                                     ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate. For Private Respondent No. 4 :Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board 12.03.2026

1. By the present review petition, the petitioner (respondent

No.4 in WPC) seeks review of the order dated 05.02.2025

passed by this Court in WPC No. 765/2025 (Uttam Kumar Soni

vs. Collector & Others), whereby the said petition was

disposed of observing thus:

5. In view of the submission made by the learned

counsel for the State, the writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the Tahsildar/respondent to comply

with the order of the Collector within a period of

fifteen days, if the same has not been done till date.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

2. The review petitioner/respondent No. 4 in the writ petition

preferred the review mainly on the ground that while

disposing of the writ petition proper opportunity of hearing

was not afforded to the review petitioner (respondent No.4

therein) and the writ petition has been filed by the writ

petitioner by concealing the material facts. According to the

review petitioner, pendency of the criminal revision before this

Court and MJC before the Civil Court was also not brought to

the notice of this Court and as such the order passed by this

Court is required to be reviewed. He would submit because of

non grant of opportunity of hearing the litigant should not

suffer.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein would

submit that in fact the Collector has been directed by the

Executing Court for execution of judgment and decree passed

by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil

Suit No. 01B/2017 and in compliance of the same the matter

referred to the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, by Collector who is having

jurisdiction in respect of the said issue.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

order under review.

5. This Court had directed the Tahsildar to comply with the order

passed by the Collector for recovery in pursuance of the

judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit by the learned

Sixth Additional District Judge. On a specific query put by this

Court, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits

that there is no stay operating against the judgment and

decree passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge by

any higher forum.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the

considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed

and, therefore, no interference with the order passed by this

Court is warranted.

7. The Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow 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, we cannot sit in

judgment over our own order. In the order dated 28.01.2025,

which is sought to be reviewed, we have set out our complete

understanding of the order of the learned Single Judge to

arrive at our own reasoned conclusion. We are, therefore not

satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the

petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different.

8. 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).