Manipur High Court
Chingangbam Ibomcha Singh vs Kharibam Hitler Singh And 13 Others on 11 September, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.11 15:43:10 +05'30'
Sl. No.2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review.Pet. No. 1 of 2020
Ref:- WP(C) No. 898 of 2018
Chingangbam Ibomcha Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Kharibam Hitler Singh and 13 others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
ORDER
11.09.2025
[1] This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under the
relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for reviewing the
orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C) No.
898 of 2018 dated 20.12.2019 raising various grounds.
[2] Mr. Juno Rahaman, learned counsel for the petitioner has
appeared through video conferencing and whereby the said counsel is
seeking some short accommodation on the premises that he wants to secure
some instructions from the petitioner. However, the petition is of the year
2020 and whereby in this review petition, the petitioner is seeking for
reviewing the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side
in WP(C) No. 809 of 2018 dated 20.12.2019.
[3] Whereas, the learned senior counsel Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei
for the respondent No. 1 in this matter is present and submitting that this
review petition has been initiated by the petitioner for reviewing the orders
1|Page
rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side which is stated supra
and that the petitioner had already been retired from service on 31st January,
2020. This submission which is made by the aforesaid senior counsel for the
respondent No. 1 is taken on record. Whereas, Ms. Thanyomi Keishing,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 is also present before
the court physically.
[4] However, keeping in view the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the submissions made by the
learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 in this matter are concerned,
it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors.
Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024)2SCC 362 decided
on 31st October, 2023 whereby in para 9 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India observed that "In the words of Krishna Iyer J.,
(as His Lordship then was) "a plea of 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
the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the
law laid down must rest in peace."
[5] Whereas in para 11 in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India referred the judgment of Parsion Devi and Ors.
v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made very pivotal observations:
2|Page
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure
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 of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of
Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction
Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must
be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
[6] However, keeping in view the submission made by the
aforesaid senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 in this matter that the
petitioner has already been attained superannuation i.e. on 31st January,
2020, there is no substance to review the petition and more so, keeping in
view the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India which is stated supra, it is deemed appropriate to state that the review
petition does survive for consideration.
[7] Consequently, this review petition is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
3|Page
