Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (by circulation in chamber)

Order Date: 24.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Bhojram, son of Late Sonuram Sahu, aged about 50 years, resident of Village Patharia, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents:

1. General Manager, Associated Cement Company Jamul Bhilai 1, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. State of Chhattisgarh through District Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Mining Officer, Durg Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (particulars not properly mentioned in cause title).

  • Proceedings: Review Petition (RevP No. 321 of 2026) filed seeking review of the judgment dated 27.03.2026 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 502/2023, wherein the Second Appeal was dismissed and the concurrent judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appellate Court were affirmed.
  • Grounds advanced by petitioner:
  • Alleged acquisition of knowledge of the sale deed and alleged irregularities only after obtaining documents under the Right to Information Act.
  • Claims of fraud, unauthorized execution of the sale deed, and continuation of illegal possession after expiry of the alleged lease period, creating a continuing cause of action.
  • Assertion that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and could not have been decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
  • Court’s observations:
  • Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or other sufficient reasons; it is not a vehicle for re‑hearing or re‑appreciation of issues already adjudicated.
  • The petitioner’s grounds essentially seek reconsideration of issues already canvassed before the Court in the Second Appeal, which were argued by Shri Avinash Chand Sahu and Ms. Priyanshi Dubey on behalf of the petitioner.
  • In the present review petition, Shri Anurag Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioner without a satisfactory explanation for the change in representation.
  • No manifest error apparent on the face of the record was established to warrant interference.
  • The review petition is barred by limitation; the petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 01/2026) seeking condonation of a 92‑day delay without providing a plausible explanation.
  • The Court reiterated that only patent errors may be corrected in review; any matter requiring reasoning or re‑hearing amounts to appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible.
  • The Court cited several Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India (2000) AIR 1650, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi (2013) 2 SCC 1, Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair (2017) 4 SCC 692).

Final Outcome

  • The review petition is dismissed, thereby upholding the original judgment dated 27.03.2026 that affirmed the trial and appellate court decisions.

Topics: Legal Review, Cement Industry