Review petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot reargue merits and are limited to errors apparent on the record.

For Petitioner : Mr. Suhas Mehar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

16/06/2025

1. By way of this review petition, the review–petitioner has sought recall/modification of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in WP227 No. 240 of 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the review–petitioner submits that earlier WP227 No. 240 of 2025 was filed by the review–petitioner challenging the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the review– petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of revision petition on technical grounds without considering the merits of case. He further submits that during the course of hearing, on a pointed query being raised by this Hon’ble Court regarding maintainability of revision before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, correct submission could not be made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the review–petitioner and the petition was withdrawn because the entire records of the District Commission were not available with the petitioner due to ex-parte proceedings. He contends that present is a case where jurisdictional error has been committed by the District Consumer Commission which ought to have been considered in the Revision Petition by the State Commissioner but same was dismissed on the ground of limitation rather than being heard on merits. He prays for an immediate review of the order dated 21.03.2025 as the same would be expedient in the interest of justice with direction to the State Commission to restore the Revision Petition and allow the review–petitioner to adduce additional evidence, if necessary.

3. Heard.

4. Firstly, WP227 No. 240 of 2025 was listed on 21.03.2025 wherein a pointed query regarding maintainability of the revision before the State Commission was raised and when the counsel appearing therein could not give appropriate answer, he prayed for and was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

Secondly, the order impugned was passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 01.01.2025. Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 expressly provides for a provision of appeal before the National Comission against the order passed by the State Commission.

5. Vide order dated 21.03.2025, WP 227 No. 240 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. It appears that petitioner has again approached this Court bypassing the statutory remedy available to him. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

6. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order

47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-

“Order 47 Rule 1 CPC "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made,