##PAGE1##

1

Digitally signed

by SIDDHANT 2026:CGHC:5172

SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR

TAMRAKAR D 20a 2te 6: .02.05

17:15:33

+0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

REVP No. 23 of 2026

 Vishwanath S/o Khedram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bavli, Tahsil

Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Madholal S/o Chunagram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Bavli Tahsil

Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Review Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate

For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate

For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Meera Ansari, Advocate holding the

brief of Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Judgment On Board

30/01/2026

1. The review petitioner has filed this review petition for re-call of the

judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 359 of 2003 dated 29.08.2025

inter alia on the ground that this Court failed to consider the sale-deed

executed in favour of review petitioner.

2. It is pleaded that the review petitioner got possession of the land bearing

survey No. 288 on 23.10.1987 and this fact was not rebutted by opposite

2

party. Further case of the review petitioner is that the plaintiff was under

obligation to prove his case. It is pleaded that this Court failed to discuss

the facts of the case properly.

3. Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate would submit that a sale-deed was executed

in favour of review petitioner and possession was also handed over,

therefore, there was no occasion to ignore the registered deed of transfer.

He would submit that this Court while dismissing the second appeal failed

to appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would

oppose. They would submit that there is no mistake apparent on the face

of record warranting review of the judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

6. The plaintiff purchased total area of survey No. 288 through registered

sale-deed dated 27.05.1987, thereafter, review petitioner purchased part

of survey No. 288 from Sagarmal. Though no land was available to be

sold by Sagarmal, but this fact was not verified by the review petitioner

before execution of sale-deed. If there was any dispute between Sagarmal

and Krishna Kumar, Sagarmal should have challenged the sale-deed

executed by Surajmal by filing appropriate suit.

7. 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

3

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, or

on account of some mistake or error apparent on

the face of the record or for any other sufficient

reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree

passed or order made against him, may apply for a

review of judgment to the Court which passed the

decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied)

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or

order may apply for a review of judgment

notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some

other party except where the ground of such appeal

is common to the applicant and the appellant, or

when, being respondent, he can present to the

Appellate Court the case on which he applied for

the review.

Explanation: The fact that the decision on a

question of law on which the judgment of the Court

is based has been reversed or modified by the

subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other

case