The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal in disguise; rehearing or re-arguing matters already decided is impermissible. The judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent on the restrictive scope of review proceedings and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/268/2025 of MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs SAJAN KUMAR SURYAVANSHI |
| CNR | CGHC010349852025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| 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 within jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure – Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that review proceedings are not a substitute for appeal. Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record or where sufficient cause is shown. A rehearing or correction of an erroneous decision on merits is not permissible in review. The limited grounds for review do not include re-agitating contentions already adjudicated unless an error is self-evident without long reasoning. The judgment reaffirmed the restrictive mandate set by the Supreme Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, and Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited: no review where ground is an erroneous decision on merits. Review is allowed only for errors apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Subsequent changes in law or coordinate decisions do not form a ground for review. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The review petitioner (CIDC) sought recall/modification of a prior order directing the authorities to consider the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. Petitioner’s claims were based on alleged misapplication of applicable policies. The court had earlier provided directions after hearing submissions and considering documents; the present petition attempted to re-argue these points under the guise of review. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review petitions cannot be used for re-arguing or rehearing merits already decided by the court.
- Cites and applies the Supreme Court doctrine that review is strictly limited to cases of error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause and is not an appeal in disguise.
- Explicitly references that neither subsequent changes in law nor coordinate bench decisions qualify as grounds for review.
- Underlines that proper procedure is for aggrieved parties to file an appeal, rather than seeking review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court highlighted the statutory framework: Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which confine review to specific grounds—error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reason.
- Cited Supreme Court judgments (Parsion Devi, Perry Kansagra, M/S Shanti Conductors, Beghar Foundation), which consistently restrict the scope of review and clarify that rehearing matters decided on merits is not permissible.
- Emphasized that the test for “error apparent on the face of the record” is strict: it must be self-evident, not one requiring elaborate reasoning.
- Reviewed the facts and found no such error or new material; the petitioner sought simply to re-argue settled issues, which is not allowed.
- The review petition was thus dismissed as no valid ground for review was shown.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed that respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment was correctly rejected due to lack of requisite qualification under the policy in force at the time of death.
- Asserted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and policy at date of death applies.
- Sought to recall the previous order directing reconsideration of the respondent’s claim.
Respondent
- Opposed the review petition, supporting the original direction to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment.
Factual Background
The father of the respondent died in harness as an employee of the petitioner corporation in August 2017, during the applicability of the 2011 compassionate appointment policy. The respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment was initially rejected for want of requisite educational qualifications under that policy. The High Court, in an earlier writ petition, had directed state authorities to reconsider the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment within 90 days if vacancies existed. The present review petition was filed by the corporation seeking recall or modification of the court’s earlier order.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, reiterating that review can be sought only where there is a mistake, error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient cause.
- Highlighted the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1, clarifying that a mere change in law or a subsequent judicial decision does not constitute a ground for review.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, directions, or guidelines were set by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies existing Supreme Court precedent on the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.