Dilip Kumar Koshre v. Maheshwar Dewangan

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 213 of 2019 • Dilip Kumar Koshre S/o Tulsiram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Fardfod, Police Station Devri, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Maheshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Bedlal Dewangan R/o Village Gabdi, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

2. Bedilal Dewangan S/o Rambharosha Dewangan, R/o Village Gabdi, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, In Front Of United Hospital, Near Syndicate Bank, 2nd Floor, Old Bus Stand Road Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents Application for review of the order dated 11-9-2019 passed in MCC No. 325 of 2018 By circulation in Chamber S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma 8-11-2019

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. By this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 11-9-2019 passed by this Court in MCC No. 325 of 2018 on the ground mentioned in the petition.

3. After going through the order of MCC No. 325 of 2018 it is manifest that after appreciating all the facts and legal aspect of the matter, this Court has disposed of said MCC on merit.

4. 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 applicant.

5. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal / revision 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.

6. Accordingly, the instant MCC being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Raju