The High Court reiterates that a review petition under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be entertained to re-argue matters, raise new grounds, or allow a “volte-face” by parties; review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered evidence. Existing Supreme Court precedent strictly limiting review jurisdiction is affirmed, reinforcing binding authority for civil proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/335/2025 of Smt. Manbarta Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010422462025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| 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 State of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent on scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter/evidence that could not have been produced despite due diligence. Review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be used to permit re-argument or to introduce new grounds that were not urged in the original proceedings. The failure of counsel to raise certain grounds or to highlight additional documents during the original hearing does not constitute a ground for review. The review petition is dismissed as no such grounds are made out. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioners sought review/recall of a previous order dismissing their writ petition, alleging non-consideration of certain revenue records (1981-86) showing land as barren rather than forest land. These records were on record but not highlighted during the writ proceedings. The State opposed the review, contending that the original findings were categorical and new grounds cannot be raised in review. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that review jurisdiction is strictly limited; new grounds or fresh arguments cannot be introduced via review petitions if they were not originally pleaded or argued.
- The court clarified that discovery of documents already part of the record but not previously highlighted does not constitute “new and important evidence” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
- There is a reaffirmation that counsel’s omission to argue or refer to documents during the original hearing cannot be cured by a review petition.
- Advocates should meticulously argue all material and legal contentions in the principal hearing, as review will not serve as a second opportunity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the statutory provisions governing review (Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC), reciting the text and emphasizing the limited grounds for intervention.
- Citing Supreme Court precedents (Northern India, Sajjan Singh, Parsion Devi, Shanti Conductors, Beghar Foundation, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan), the Court explained that review is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering genuinely new evidence that could not, with due diligence, have been produced earlier.
- The Court reasoned that a review petition cannot be used as a “disguised appeal” or an opportunity for a party to “commit a volte-face” and introduce new grounds or re-arguments not previously taken.
- Decisions already given after considering available documents and argument must “rest in peace” — there is no ground for review merely because a party or their counsel failed to highlight a particular aspect earlier.
- Applying these principles to the petitioners’ application, the court found no error apparent on the record or new evidence, and thus dismissed the review petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Submitted that revenue records for 1981–86 recorded the disputed land as “barren land,” not “forest land.”
- Asserted that these records were ignored and not considered by the Collector and by the Court in the original writ proceedings.
- Claimed that the review was necessary because the issue went to the root of the matter, and the omission constituted a legal error.
Respondent (State):
- Contended that these arguments and contentions were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
- Armed that the Collector’s order conclusively recorded the land as “forest land” and that lease could not have been granted.
- Asserted that permitting the petitioners to raise new or additional grounds would amount to re-arguing the case, which is not permissible in review.
Factual Background
The petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the denial of a lease relating to Khasra No. 439/2, with official records recording the land as “forest land.” The Collector’s 2019 order recorded the land as “forest land” based on revenue records and mentioned an encroacher’s name. Petitioners, through their review petition, contended that earlier revenue records (1981-86) described the land as barren, and that omission to highlight these documents resulted in an adverse order. They sought recall/modification of the writ order. The State opposed, noting the new grounds were not raised previously.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 114 CPC: Vests the power of review in courts.
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: Provides for review only on grounds of discovery of new and important matter/evidence not within knowledge or producible with due diligence at the time of decree, or for error apparent on the face of record, or any other sufficient reason.
- The Court cited the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, clarifying that a subsequent reversal of law is not a ground for review.
- The Court emphasized that review cannot be used as an appeal, nor for fresh decisions or to address issues not previously argued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and affirms established Supreme Court precedent restricting the grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.