Sing^Bench m THE l^^l L r^r ^^ : tei Throuqh : Dy.Gensrai (C.G.) VERSUS -@ SA). Shri 46 years, TaQls Operslor, Resldent sf TehsrtA DlffS. 5te^?w<C.Gj IN W.P. BY The 8s under ~ c ^"^ tir-'it..; ^/ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Beach: Hon*ble Sluri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. M.C.C. No. 277 OF 2006 Petitioner : Bhilai Refi-actories Plaat Ltd. Versus Respondent Chaadra Prakash Paiidey Shri R.M, Solapiirkar, coiinsel for fhe petitioner. None for fhe respondent. ORAL ORDBR (12th June. 2006) The present appUcation seeks for review of the order dated 3.3.2006 passed ia W.P. No. 1320/2001. The prcsent appUcation is filed wifh aa appUcation for condonation of delay ia filing this appUcation, as this appUcation is filed wifh 12 days delay. Review petitioner seeks re-hearuig of flie entire inatter on tlie new groimd that on 12.3.2001 the respondent/eniployee comniitted aa offence under Section 376, 493 aad 506 of IPC and his services were terminated on fhe report ofpoUce. The service of fhe petitioner was termiaated by order dated 24.3.2001 not on fhe ground ofpoUce cx)iaplamt, but on fhe ground of abseace froia dzity, for the period 11.3.2001 to 24.3.2001. 4. In fhe raaia petition termiaation order was considered at length aad after hearmg bofti fhe parties flie petition was allowed. 5. After hearing learaed counsel for fhe review petitioner aad penisuig fhe records, I have not found an^y ground for entertamiag this appUcation for review on fhe ground of error apparent on the face of record. 6. The Supreme Court m the case of M/s Northera ladia Caterers (Indla) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi {(1980) 2 S.C.C. 167} ia para-8 observed as under:- "8. It is weU settied fhat a party is not entifled to seek a review of a judgnient deUvered by fhis Coiul raerely for fhe purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of fhe case. The normal principle is that a judgxaent prouounced by fhe Court is j6nal, and departure froxn fhat prmciple is justified only when circuxastaaces of a substaatial aiid conipeUiag character niake it necessaiy to do so: Sajjaa Siagh v. State of Rajasfhaa. For iastaace, tf fhe attention of the Court is not drawu to a material statutory provision during ttie origiiial hearing, fhe Court wiU rcview its judginent: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessaxy to pass aa order to do fiiU aad efFective justice: O.N. Mohmdroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi. Power to rcview its jiidgnient has been confeiTed on flie Suprerae Coiirt by Article 137 of the Constittition, aad that power is subject to the provisions of aay law niade by ParUament or fhe rales inade under Ardcle 145. In a civU proceediag, aii appllcatiou for rcview is entertamed only on a groixnd raentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of CivU Procedure, aad in a cnmmal proceeduig on ftie ground of an error apparent on fhe face of fhe record (Qrder XL, Riile 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of fhe proceediag, it is beyond dispute tih.at a review proceedin^g caanot be equated wifh fhe origiaal hearing of the case, aiid fhe fiiiality of fhe judgraent delivered by fhe Court wiU not be reconsidered except awhere a glariag omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept ia earUer by judicial faUibility?': Sow Chaadran Kante v. Sheikh Habib" 7. Review Ues ou aiiy of fhe grounds speci&ed under Order 47 Rule 1 offhe Code ofCivU Prc^edure which provides:- ^l.AppUcation for review of judgraent-(l) Any person considermg hiaiself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order froni which aa appeal is aUowed, but froia which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order frora which no appeal is allowed, or © by a decision on a reference froni a Court of Sniall Causes, aad who, froni the discovexy of new and iaiportaat raatter or evidence which, after fhe exercise of due diUgence was not withui his knowledge or could not be prodiiced by him at fhe tinie when fhe decree was passed or order made, or on accouut of soiae inistake or error apparent on fhe face of the record, or for aay ofher sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of fhe decree passed or order inade against hioi, laay apply for a review ofjzidgnient to fhe Court which passed fhe decree or xnade fhe order. 2.A party who is not appealmg from a decree or order niay apply for a review of judgment notwithstandiag the pendency of an appeal by sonie other party except where fhe ground of such appeal is common to fhe applicant aad fhe appeUaiit, orwheu, being respoudent, he caii preseutto 'Q£) INNI»^ fhe AppeUate Coiirt fhe case on which he appUes for fhe review. (Explaaation——The fact that tiie decision on a question of law OVL which fhe judgraent of fhe Court is based has been reversed or niodt&ed by fhe subsequent decision of a superior Coiirt ia aay other case, shaU not be a grouiid for the review of such judgnient.)w 8. The Supreme Court ia Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others { (2005) 2 SCC 332} observed as under:- "3. ..,.. ...If fhe petitioners failed to furaish fhe necessaiy inaterial even during fhe pendency of appeal in tfais Court, fhat is no groiind to review fhe jiidgment.»...../' 9. In the case ofKerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics 8s Hydropower Ltd. and others {(2005) 6 S.C.C. 651} tiie Supreme Court observed as under:" <"10. ............^To permit the review petitloner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would axaouut to convertuig a review petition itito aa appeal ia disguise." 10. Frora fhe above^stated obser^ations niade by fhe Supreiae Court, it is clear fhat fhe review petitioner has niade an attenipt to seek re-hearing of the raatter afresh, on fhe ground which was not fhe issue ia fhe iGiaia writ petition as the unpugned termiaation order dated 24.3.2001 was passed on fhe ground ofabsence from. dzity. 11. Accordingly, tibie petition is disiaissed. No order as to costs. OP^-^ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge