IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR £CGJ REVIEW PETITION N0. 1~1 OF 200 U'"0' (Arising out of M.A. (C) No. 298/2009)^- APPLICANTS ...-^".^c^*"' _....-••: ^^''VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Dhaniram Sahu son of Chintaram Sahu, aged about 43 years, 2. Anandram Sahu son of Prahlad Sahu, aged about 37 years, Both are Resident of Village Baghul, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) Dulichand Sahu son of Dheiuram Sahu, aged about 39 years, Dhanmat Bai wife of Dulichand Sahu, aged about 35 years, Both are Reside of Village Baghul, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through: the Branch Manager, Station Road, Dur^.(C.G.) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.201 1 The applicants named above, most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under:- HIGH CQURTOF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.77/2011 ^ Applicant Respondents versys Dhaniram Sahu & Another Dulichand Sahu & others Aoplication for review ofthe order dated 15.7.2011 passed in M.A.(C) No.298/2009 SB: Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. J. ORDER (Passed on |.'2,September, 2011 .) 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 the instant petition, the petitioners/appellants, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombav Vs. Laxman Avver and others (2003) 8 SCC 731 and (20091 1 CGU 216(DBl seek review of muitiplier of 15 and deduction of 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses applied by this Court for decision in Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.298/2009. 3. Perused the record and the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment in para 7 deductions towards his personal and tiving expenses and multiplier is already discussed. The review petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and have not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners. -•^-.>\ ""^.^^1 'A il 1 v:%-^.// ^.^" r>-^ 4. In Smt. Bidva Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Allahabad and Others AIR 2004 Calcutta 63 it has been held that Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), 0.47, R.1Ss.114,11-Review-Scope-Plea that decision was rendered in ignorance of settled principle of law - Decision was not erroneous - No error in fact or law on face of record - Earlier decision had conclusively determined issue between parties and would operate as res judicata - No ground for review therefore made out. 5. In Smt. Sushila and Others Vs. Raibeer Sinah and others. 2007 (2) M.P.H.T. 502 (DB), it has been held that It is settled position under the law that even a decision or order erroneous in law or on merits it can not be accepted that it is an error apparently on the fact of the record and the aforesaid mistakes can not be corrected exercising powers of review under Order 47 Rule1. 6, In Lilv Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1650, it has been held that the dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treatedas an appeat in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law ^ .^\ following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be foltowed and practiced. However, the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Art.136 or Art.32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment." 7. Smt. Meera Bhania Vs. smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudharv. AIR 1995 S.C. 455, it has been held that "Error apparent on face of record" - "Means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Dispute whether plaintiff and defendant had jointly purchased disputed plot - Finding thereon given by appellate Court - Not reviewable even though it was erroneous - Review Court reappreciating entire evidence and reversing finding of appellate Court - Review Court exceeded its jurisdiction - Order liable to be set aside." 8. Aiit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orisa and others.AIR 2000 SC 85. it has been held that "Order 47. the power can be exercised on the application of a person on 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 order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or ^ v asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in 0.47, R/1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those spedfied in the rule. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under Act to review its judgment." In this regard Kerala State Electricitv Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics and Hvdropower Ltd. And others 920051 SCC 651 and Kanhaiva Lal Mehar Vs. Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh and others. 2007 (3) CGU 326 = 2008 (11 M.P.H.T. 2QJC.G.} 9. The grounds raised in the instant petition for review of the order dated 15.7.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.298/2009 have already been considered by this Court in the said order. No new ground has been taken in the review petition. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge