HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. APPLICATION PETITOIN (C) No. FOR 5227/2008 REVIEW (Smt. OF ORDER MANJULATA DATED MISHRA 13.02.2009 a PASSED V — MUNICIPAL IN WIRT CORPORATOINI JAGDALI’UR[ Present: petitioner. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.K.Yadav, Advocate for the Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent. M SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A nihotri J. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th day ofApriI, 2009) The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 13‘“ Febmary, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5227/2008 (Smt. Manjuiata Mishra v. Municipal Corporatoin, Jagdalpur) whereby the petition was dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to competent jurisdictional court, if so advised. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that there is an error on the face ol‘record, as this Court, while recording the finding that there was a dispute with regard to titie and ownership of the land, has recorded that the land in dispute was Nazul land and not the private landl On perusai of the order sought to be reviewed. it is found that there was no finding recorded by the Court in regard to nature of the land as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation was recorded and thereafter it was held that there was a dispute with regard to title and ownership of the land, which cannot be decided by this Court. Thus, the W Smt. Manjulata Mishra, aged about 66 D/o Late Ambika Prasad Awasthi, R/o N0. 1, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENT VERSUS : Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur Commissioner, Municipal submission of the review petitioner is not sustainable. There is n0 error on the face 01‘ record No other ground seeking review of the order dated 13.02.2009 has been raised. I do not flnd any manifest error on the record and the review petitioner has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the review petitioner. It is well-settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule l of the Code of Civil Procedure Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the review petitioner has not produced any new ground for review. The review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well-settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to (convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See Smt. Meera Bhanjan v. Sml. Nirmal Kumar C/qwd/vary], Lily Thomas etc. v. Union ofINdia and athersz, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State afOrissa and 0t/1ers3, Government 0fT.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asarz‘ and olhersJ, and Ker/a State Electricity Boara’ v, Hiteclz Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and othersj.) As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl— - Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit ‘AIR 1995 SC 455 2 AIR 2000 sc t650 3AIR 2000 sc 85 " (2005) 2 SCC 332 5 (2005) 6 scc 651 2