The High Court reiterates that review jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or overlooked legal provisions; it cannot be used for re-hearing or re-appreciation of evidence. This judgment upholds longstanding Supreme Court precedents and serves as binding authority on the limited scope of review petitions in civil and administrative matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/262/2025 of JUGAL KISHORE URAON Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010326032025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha & Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) |
| Precedent Value | Binding in the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court jurisprudence on review jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil / Administrative Law (Review Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The scope of review jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record or where a relevant legal provision is overlooked; review is not an avenue for virtually re-hearing the matter or for re-appraising evidence. Such re-appreciation amounts to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law. The present petition revealed no error apparent on the record; thus, review was not maintainable. If aggrieved, the petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere, not in review. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Established Supreme Court principle that review jurisdiction is for correcting patent errors or overlooked legal provisions, not for re-opening or re-arguing cases. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought review/recall of a Division Bench order dated 26.06.2025 (in W.A. No. 405/2025), arguing that key factual aspects previously appreciated by the Single Judge (and affirmed in review) were not considered in appeal. The State supported the order under review and opposed the review petition. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; all benches of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering scope of review petitions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for a virtual re-hearing or re-appraisal of evidence; it is strictly limited to rectifying patent errors or overlooked legal provisions.
- Reappreciating facts already considered by the court does not fall within the scope of review.
- The ground that certain facts were not sufficiently considered is not adequate for review unless a clear error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the petitioner’s claim that prior factual findings by the Single Judge and order in review were overlooked by the Division Bench in appeal.
- Citing multiple Supreme Court authorities—including Devaraju Pillai, Meera Bhanja, Avijit Tea Co., Lily Thomas, Akhilesh Yadav, and Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair—the bench emphasized that review jurisdiction is strictly limited.
- Only manifest errors apparent on the record, or material legal provisions overlooked, can be corrected on review; no rehearing or re-appreciation is allowed.
- The petitioner’s arguments involved seeking a re-hearing under the garb of review, which is not permissible.
- No apparent error being established, the review petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Contended that the Single Judge had properly appreciated all facts in the original writ petition and in earlier review, but these aspects were not considered by the Division Bench in writ appeal.
- Claimed the State counsel failed to present the full factual matrix to the Division Bench.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the order passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal.
- Prayed for dismissal of the review petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner sought review of a Division Bench order dated 26.06.2025 in W.A. No. 405/2025, by which the decision of the Single Judge (allowing petitioner’s writ) was reversed. The Single Judge had earlier also dismissed the State’s review petition. The review petitioner argues that crucial factual findings and dismissals by the Single Judge were not considered during the appeal. The State resists the review, relying on the correctness of the order under review.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed the scope of review jurisdiction under civil and administrative law. It emphasized that review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or overlooking of any material provision of law. The court clarified, relying on Supreme Court precedents, that any re-appreciation amounts to exercising appellate, not review, jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded; both judges concurred in the reasoning and conclusion.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44837-DB
- Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61
- Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), (1995) 1 SCC 170
- Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, (1996) 10 SCC 174
- Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650
- Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1
- Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, (2017) 4 SCC 692