The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms the settled principle that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, or other sufficient reasons—not to permit re-arguing the case or introducing new grounds. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent, serving as binding authority within the State and persuasive for other jurisdictions in matters of review petitions under CPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/336/2025 of INDRI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH LRS. NAMELY RAMNARAYAN GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010421262025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| 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 within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere in review petition jurisprudence |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent on scope of review jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Review under CPC), Administrative Law (Revenue Records) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a review petition can be entertained for re-arguing the case or on new grounds not raised in the original writ petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The power to review a judgment or order is circumscribed by the grounds laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, i.e., error apparent on the record, discovery of new material not available despite due diligence, or any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be used as a means to re-argue the case or to advance new grounds that were not raised during the original proceedings. Jurisprudence clearly establishes that the finality of judgments must be respected and review jurisdiction can only be exercised in cases of manifest error or compelling circumstances. The factual omission by counsel during the writ proceedings to highlight certain evidence does not create a ground for review. The review petition, in such a scenario, is liable to be dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court discussed and quoted Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments holding that review is not an appeal in disguise and is maintainable only under strict, limited grounds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged an order dismissing his writ petition on the ground that the subject land was recorded as forest land. In review, petitioner cited overlooked revenue records indicating “barren land,” claiming this fact was not pointed out by counsel earlier. The Court found that the omission to present this fact in the writ proceedings did not justify review, as no error was apparent on the face of the record and review cannot permit re-argument or introduce new pleas. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court (in analogous review petition situations where litigants seek to introduce new arguments) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review petitions cannot be used as a forum for re-argument or to introduce new grounds/evidence overlooked by counsel in original proceedings.
- Dismisses the notion that inadvertent omission by original counsel to highlight specific documents constitutes “error apparent” for review.
- Clearly emphasizes the finality of judgments except where strict grounds under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are met.
- Lawyers must thoroughly present all relevant documents and arguments during writ proceedings; omissions cannot be remedied through review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first considered the pleadings and documents, noting that the claim regarding the land being recorded as “barren” existed in documents but was not brought to the Court’s attention during the original writ.
- After reviewing the statutory scheme—specifically, Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC—the Court explained that review is only allowed on limited grounds: error apparent, discovery of previously unavailable evidence, or sufficient cause.
- Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court precedents (including Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi; Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi; M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board; Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy; and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa), all holding that mere oversight, re-argument, or new pleas are not valid grounds for review.
- The Court highlighted the principle that judgments are meant to be final and that review proceedings cannot function as appeals in disguise.
- Given no error apparent on the record or new evidence properly qualifying under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the review petition was found unsustainable and dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the land in question was recorded as “barren land” in the revenue records (years 1981–86), which was part of the State’s return in the writ but not presented to Court by counsel during original proceedings.
- Argued that this overlooked fact goes to the root of the case and justifies review/recall of the original order dismissing the writ petition.
State/Respondents
- Asserted that these contentions and documents were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ.
- Emphasized that the Collector had categorically found the land to be forest land in the revenue records, justifying refusal of lease.
- Contended that review cannot be permitted to re-argue the case or introduce new grounds, and that the review should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 28.1.2025, with the revenue authorities having recorded the subject land (Khasra No. 439/2) as “forest land.” The petitioner sought review based on certain revenue records (years 1981–86) allegedly showing the land as “barren,” arguing that this material, although on record, was not highlighted by counsel during the earlier hearing. The review petition sought recall/modification of the dismissal order on this ground.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Order 47 Rule 1 permits review only on limited grounds:
- discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within knowledge or producible despite due diligence;
- mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
- any other sufficient reason.
- Quoted explanation that changes in law or subsequent judgments do not by themselves constitute ground for review.
- The Court interpreted these provisions narrowly, emphasizing the restrictive scope and the bar on re-hearing or re-argument under the guise of review.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court precedent on review jurisdiction affirmed.