Digitally s S i I g D n D e H d A b N y T 2026:CGHC:11774 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:

2026.03.13 10:52:12 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 65 of 2026 • Loknath S/o Mukundi Aged About 36 Years Caste - Kachhi R/o Tendumuda, Tahsil Pendraroad District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned in Impugned Order as District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 1)

... Petitioner versus

1. Kedarnath S/o Mukundi Aged About 43 Years Caste Kachhi R/o Tendumuda, Tahsil Pendraroad District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh)

2. Smt. Arti Devi W/o Loknath Aged About 33 Years Caste Kachhi R/o Tendumuda, Tahsil Pendraroad District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 2)

... Respondent(s)

For Review Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

12.03.2026

1. The review petitioner, who was respondent No. 1 in WP227 No. 731 of

2022, has filed this petition for review/modification of order dated

29.07.2025.

2. Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate would submit that the review petitioner never consented for mutual partition and observation made in the order dated

29.07.2025 has no foundation. He would contend that contention made by a counsel on a question of law is not binding on the party. He would further submit that this Court remitted back the matter to the concerned Tahsildar to decide the issue of division of land between the parties within a period of 120 days and such order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the review petitioner, thus, he would pray for re-

call of order.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 would oppose. He would submit that despite service of notice, the review petitioner, who was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition did not appear and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2025, whereby, the matter was remitted back to the Tahsildar to decide the issue of division of land between the parties after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties involved. He would contend that the review petitioner would get opportunity of hearing before the concerned Tahsildar. It is also argued that there is no mistake apparent on the face of record; therefore, this review petition is not maintainable.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Review petitioner, who was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, did not turn up despite service of notice and writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 29.07.2025. This Court disposed of the writ petition making following observation :-

“5. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Chaturvedi and further considering the fact that earlier, twice the orders were passed by Tehsildar and Patwari with regard to division of subject property, therefore, matter is remitted back to the concerned Tehsildar to decide the issue of division of land between the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is expected that Tehsildar, Pendraroad shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties involved before passing final order.”

6. The review petitioner failed to point out any mistake or error in the order dated 29.07.2025 warranting review.

7. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others

1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:-

9. “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an