The High Court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot serve as an appeal in disguise and may only be allowed on grounds strictly defined by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, such as error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence not previously available. The judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent, reiterates limits on the review power, and serves as binding precedent for all subordinate courts in similar matters, especially in government service and compassionate appointment disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/253/2025 of MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs GUNJAN ADILE |
| CNR | CGHC010349812025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within the High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether substantive rehearing of decided issues is permissible in review where no error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence is shown |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and may not be exercised to rehear or re-argue matters already decided. Review is only available for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, or where new and important matter or evidence comes to light that could not have been produced earlier with due diligence. The parties were afforded adequate opportunity in the main proceeding, and their submissions were duly considered. No grounds for review, as defined by law and precedent, were made out. Permitting review in such circumstances would result in an impermissible appeal in disguise. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought recall/modification of an order granting compassionate appointment consideration, arguing the policy in force at time of death controlled. The primary ground was lack of vacancy, and claim had already been considered on merits. The court noted sufficient opportunity was given, submissions were recorded, and the present review sought a rehearing without showing any permissible ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Review was thus not maintainable. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, to a limited extent, the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review proceedings cannot serve as an appeal in disguise; issues once argued and decided cannot be reopened in review unless strict grounds exist.
- Clarifies that errors must be self-evident (i.e., apparent on the face of the record); no long-drawn process of reasoning is permitted.
- Even a subsequent change in law or a Supreme Court decision is not on its own a ground for review.
- Review is not a substitute for remedy via appeal; lawyers should focus any review strictly within Order 47 Rule 1 CPC confines.
- Sufficient opportunity granted in earlier proceedings may preclude a later attempt at rehearing matters via review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by outlining the statutory text of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that review can only be sought for grounds specified therein.
- Key precedents, including Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, were cited to reiterate that review cannot be an appeal in disguise, re-arguing issues already settled.
- The court noted further binding authority (Shanti Conductors; Beghar Foundation) confirming that even a change in law or subsequent superior judgment alone provides no valid basis for review.
- The facts were revisited: The claimant’s case was fully argued and considered, submissions were recorded, and the impugned order was issued after providing all parties ample opportunity.
- The court found the review petitioner was attempting a “rehearing of the writ under the guise of review,” which is not legally permissible.
- Since no error apparent on the face of record or any ground recognized under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was shown, no review jurisdiction existed.
- The review petition was accordingly dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the claim for compassionate appointment must be decided per the policy in force at the date of death.
- Asserted that the claim had already been rejected in absence of sanctioned vacancy.
- Submitted that a subsequent petition on the same issue was not maintainable.
- Argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, and requested recall of earlier direction.
Respondents
- Opposed the review petition.
- Argued against the petitioner’s contentions, maintaining the court’s earlier decision was justified.
Factual Background
The case arose from the death in harness of respondent No. 1’s father, who was employed by the petitioner. The compassionate appointment claim was initially rejected due to absence of a vacant post. The High Court, in WPS No. 1913 of 2024, had directed consideration of respondent’s claim within 90 days, including vacancy in related public bodies. The petitioner sought review of that order, asserting prior merit-based rejection and the applicability of the policy as of date of death.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC were analyzed, with the scope of review clarified.
- The court reproduced and emphasized the textual limits — review is possible only for error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter not previously knowable with due diligence.
- The Explanation to Order 47 was noted, clarifying that reversal/modification of law by other decisions is not a valid review ground.
- No reading down or expansive interpretation was applied; the provision was construed strictly as per its language and binding Supreme Court authority.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.