CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurumukh Das Advani (Dead) Through Lrs Kanta Devi And Ors vs Dr. Harishankar Pandey And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 4 September 2019 · Citation: (2019) 09 CHH CK 0031

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
High Court Of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 — Rule 90(2) · Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
REVP No. 162 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 361 words

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

1.

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of

Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

2.

I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the instant review petition.

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 130 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

4.

By this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 1-3-2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 161 of 2003 on

the ground mentioned in the petition.

5.

After going through the record of the First Appeal No. 161 of 2003 it is manifest that after appreciating all the facts and legal aspect of the matter,

this Court has disposed of the appeal on merit.

6.

Considering all the grounds mentioned in the review petition which are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the case, there is no other ground

showing any manifest error on the record and there is nothing that any new facts which could have been produced earlier but could not be produced

despite diligent efforts made by the applicants

7.

It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this review petition, liberty to re-argue the entire case on merit afresh is not permissible because it

would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas

etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others

v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others,

(2005) 6 SCC 651.

8.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.