Orissa High Court
The Principal General vs Gouri Shankar Das And on 10 November, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.215 of 2025
The Principal General
Manager, Establishment
BSNL, Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi and others ... Petitioners
Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik,
Advocate
-versus-
Gouri Shankar Das and
another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha,
Advocate for opp. party no.1
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.11.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel has
entered appearance on behalf of opp. party no.1 by
Signature Not
Verified filing Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
record.
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
This review petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking to review/recall the order dated
30.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16688
of 2025.
It appears that when the writ petition filed by the
opp. party no.1 was taken up on 30.07.2025,
challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 of the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00122 of 2020, the following
order was passed and the operative portion of the
order dated 30.07.2025 is extracted herein below for
ready reference:-
"We have carefully taken into consideration
the order passed by the learned Tribunal in
the Original Application and has also taken
into consideration the submission made by
the learned counsel at the Bar. We are of the
view that once the delay was condoned by a
speaking order by the Tribunal, which has not
been challenged by the opposite parties,
dismissing the Original Application on the
ground of delay and latches is not
sustainable. Therefore, we feel it appropriate
to set aside the order dated 17.04.2025
passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.
No.260/00122 of 2020 and remanded the
matter back to the learned Tribunal for the
purpose of deciding the Original Application
Signature Not
afresh on merits."
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
It is apparent on record that the learned Tribunal
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
when entertaining the O.A. No.260/00122 of 2020 on
28.01.2022 condoned the delay in filing the O.A. The
said order attained finality as the present petitioners
did not challenge. When the learned Tribunal finally
taken up the O.A. for hearing, the O.A. was dismissed
on the ground of delay. It appears that learned
Tribunal escaped notice of the order dated 28.01.2022
by which the delay was already condoned while
passing the final order dated 17.04.2025. Therefore,
the final order by the learned Tribunal dismissing the
O.A. on the ground of delay was not sustainable.
That‟s the view we had taken while disposing of the
writ petition, in which the learned Tribunal‟s final order
dated 17.04.2025 was challenged.
Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, learned counsel for the
review petitioners could not dispute the above
admitted facts. However, endeavored to impress upon
the Court that the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.16688 of 2025 ought not have
been passed without affording an opportunity to the
review petitioners. He has also failed to point out any
apparent error crept on record, which needs to be
addressed in the review petition.
It is trite law that the ground of review petition
should be inconsonance with the limited scope
Signature Not
Verified provided under Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure,
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
1908.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereafter „CPC‟) deals with review of judgment. An
order can be reviewed by a Court only on the
prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC. The review proceedings are not by way of an
appeal nor can an appellate power be exercised in the
guise of power of review. Review is not re-hearing of
an original matter. The power of review jurisdiction
cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can be
exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to
substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal
cannot be made subject matter of review under Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC though it can be made subject matter
of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in
order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face
of the record of the case.
In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.-
Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8
Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held as under:
"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
Signature Not
error which is not self-evident and has to be
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
detected by a process of reasoning, can
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
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."
In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik
(Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 78, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"13....The parameters are prescribed in Order
47 Code of Civil Procedure and for the
purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to
press for a rehearing "on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
records or for any other sufficient reason".
The former part of the Rule deals with a
situation attributable to the applicant, and the
latter to a jural action which is manifestly
incorrect or on which two conclusions are not
possible. Neither of them postulate a
rehearing of the dispute because a party had
not highlighted all the aspects of the case or
could perhaps have argued them more
forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to
the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable
verdict. This is amply evident from the
Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which
Signature Not
states that the fact that the decision on a
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
question of law on which the judgment of the
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
Court is based has been reversed or modified
ORISSA, CUTTACK
by the subsequent decision of a superior
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
court in any other case, shall not be a ground
for the review of such judgment. Where the
order in question is appealable, the aggrieved
party has adequate and efficacious remedy
and the Court should exercise the power to
review its order with the greatest
circumspection...."
In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -
Vrs.- Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008)
8 Supreme Court Cases 612, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe
that where a review is sought on the ground
of discovery of new matter or evidence, such
matter or evidence must be relevant and
must be of such a character that if the same
had been produced, it might have altered the
judgment. In other words, mere discovery of
new or important matter or evidence is not
sufficient ground for review ex debito
justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking
review has also to show that such additional
matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence, the same could not be produced
before the Court earlier."
In the case of Kamlesh Verma -Vrs.-
Mayawati and Ors. reported in (2013) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 320, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court after
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
analysing number of decisions on scope of review, laid
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
down its conclusions, which read as follows:-
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as
stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have
been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki: AIR
1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius: AIR 1954 SC 526 to
mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The
same principles have been reiterated in Union
of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd.: (2013) 8 SCC 337.
20.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument
is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated
with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the
Signature Not order, undermines its soundness or results in
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
miscarriage of justice.
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the
record should not be an error which has to be
fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record
is fully within the domain of the appellate
court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced
in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the
same relief sought at the time of arguing the
main matter had been negatived."
In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -Vrs.-
State Tax Officer (1) and another reported in
(2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362 wherein the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions
is that:
16.1 A judgment is open to review inter
alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record.
16.2 A judgment pronounced by the Court
is final, and departure from that principle
is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make
it necessary to do so.
xx xx xx xx
Signature Not
16.7 An error on the face of record must
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
be such an error which, mere looking at
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
the record should strike and it should not
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions."
In view of the ratio decidendi as discussed above
and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners
so also learned counsel for opp. party no.1, we do not
find any error apparent on the face of record
warranting review of our order as aforesaid.
In the result, the RVWPET fails and the same
stands dismissed.
Pending application (s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
10th November 2025
Sipun
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Nov-2025 17:12:47
