Review Petition Rejected: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Property Auction Outcome in Raipur

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 250 | 2026:CGHC:17020-DB

April 13, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh, through a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, has dismissed a review petition challenging an earlier judgment in a long-running property dispute in Raipur, reiterating that the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal.

The case, decided on April 13, 2026, arose from a petition filed by Amit Kumar Singh seeking reconsideration of a 2018 judgment that had already rejected his claim for declaration of title, injunction, and specific performance of a contract related to a disputed property in Shailendra Nagar, Raipur.

According to the petitioner, the property had been agreed to be sold to him in 1993, and he claimed to have paid the full consideration and taken possession. However, the original owners later mortgaged the property to Union Bank of India, which led to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The property was eventually auctioned in 2004 and purchased by a third party.

The petitioner had initially approached the trial court in 2002, but his suit was dismissed in 2011 on the grounds of limitation and failure to pay appropriate court fees. The decision was upheld in appeal by the High Court in 2018, and even a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India was dismissed.

In the present review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the petitioner argued that his possession should be protected under Section 53A Transfer of Property Act, claiming that the earlier judgment failed to properly consider this aspect.

The division bench, however, rejected this contention. It held that the protection under Section 53A could not be extended against parties who were not part of the original agreement, such as the bank or the auction purchaser. The court also noted that this argument had already been examined and rejected in earlier proceedings.

Clarifying the scope of review jurisdiction, the bench emphasized that a review can only be entertained in limited circumstances, such as discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used to re-argue the case or reassess evidence.

Relying on precedents including Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra and Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the court reiterated that an error requiring detailed reasoning does not qualify as an “apparent error” justifying review.

Finding no such error in the earlier judgment, the High Court concluded that the review petition lacked merit and dismissed it without costs, bringing an end to the prolonged litigation.

Case Reference : In REVP No. 60 of 2018, Amit Kumar Singh v. Ashraf Bano and Others, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Counsel, appeared for the petitioner with Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Mr. Anuroop Panda, and Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocates; none appeared for Respondents No. 1 to 4, while Mr. Yogesh Pandey represented Respondent No. 5.