Manipur High Court
Pg Chunhemlung vs Dp Korungthang on 5 August, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.14 17:08:11 +05'30'
Sl. No. 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Rev. Pet. (J2) No. 2 of 2025
Ref:- CRP (CRP Art. 227) No. 24 of 2024
PG Chunhemlung
Petitioner
Vs.
DP Korungthang
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
ORDER
05.08.2025
Mr. KR Pamei, learned counsel for the petitioner and inclusive
of Mr. Kopham, learned counsel for the respondent are present before the
Court physically in this matter.
This review petition has been initiated by the petitioner seeking
for intervention for reviewing the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in CRP(CRP
Art. 227) No. 24 of 2024.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter
is seeking for consideration of the reasons stated in this review petition but
keeping in view the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is deemed
appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax
Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362 wherein in para 9 of
the judgment it is indicated and observed that “In the words of Krishna Iyer
Page | 1
J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view
is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot
be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of
flaws and reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot
repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.”
In para 11 of the same judgment it is observed that “In
Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/1360/1997 :
(1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very pivotal observations:
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure a
judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said
to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review
Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In
exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code
of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review
petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
In the meanwhile of referring the Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC
and the scope of the said provision as addressed in the aforesaid
judgment which has been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, the counsel for the petitioner is seeking some short
accommodation.
Page | 2
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner and inclusive
of the learned counsel for the respondent be directed to clarify the
position of law which is referred supra.
List the matter on 19.08.2025.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 3