BHUPENDRA SINGH NOTEY vs GAGANDEEP KAUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.111 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010250242025
(An application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

Bhupendra Singh Notey … Petitioner
-versus-

Gagandeep Kaur … Opposite Party


For Petitioner : In person

For Opposite Party : None


CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.09.2026(ORAL)

G.Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S 114 read with
Order-XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(in short, the “CPC”) by the petitioner seeking review of
the judgment dated 04.03.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.4283 of 2024 mainly on the ground of error
apparent on the face of record and discovery of new
facts.
2. The recapitulation of facts reminisces that
the review-petitioner is the husband of present OP and
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 1 of 6

the review-petitioner had filed an application U/S. 11 read
with Sec. 12 and Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (in short the “Act”) in the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur seeking divorce
from the OP-wife on the ground of cruelty, but the OP-
wife moved an application before the Apex Court for
transfer of such application and accordingly, the aforesaid
proceeding before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jabalpur was transferred to the Court of learned
Judge Family Court, Rourkela which was renumbered as
CP No. 115 of 2018 wherein the OP-wife filed an
application U/S. 24 of the Act for grant of pendentelite
maintenance in IA No. 48-A of 2022 which was in fact
allowed by learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela directing
the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- only
per month for maintenance of the OP and her daughter
from the date of filing of first application i.e. w.e.f.
22.04.2017 in the first week of every English calendar
month together with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
Being aggrieved with aforesaid order, the review-
petitioner-cum-husband filed a writ petition before this
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 2 of 6

Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 4283 of 2024.
Accordingly, this Court after hearing the learned counsel
for the review-petitioner-cum-husband and the counsel
for the OP-wife has passed judgment dated 04.03.2025
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-husband, but
the petitioner-husband has invoked the provision of
review to recall the said judgment in the present review
petition.
3. Heard, Mr.Bhupendra Singh Notey, the
review-petitioner in person and perused the record.
4. There is no quarrel over the position of law
that a review petition can be admitted in exercise of
power U/S. 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC,
provided the party applying for review must satisfy the
Court one of the three grounds, such as: (i) discovery of
new and important matter or evidence which after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge
of the party applying for review or could not be produced
by him at the time when the decree/judgment was
passed or order made; (ii) error apparent on the face of
record; and (iii) any other sufficient reasons, but the
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 3 of 6

review-petitioner herein has sought for the review of the
dismissal judgment passed in the writ petition on the
grounds which have been stated supra.
5. Admittedly, the prayer being the foundation
of the relief is extracted as under:-
“The Petitioner, therefore, prays that your
Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit
this Review Petition, call for the records and after
hearing the parties, allow to review/ clarify/
modify the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in
W.P(C) No.4283 of2024 under Annexure-1 and to
take a decision afresh on quantum of
maintenance and effective date of grant of
maintenance and further be pleased to pass any
other order/ orders as may be deemed fit and
proper.”

A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid prayer,
this Court hardly finds any reason for review. Even
otherwise on perusing the petition, it is found that the
petitioner has sought for review of the judgment of this
Court on the ground of discovery of new facts, but the
petitioner has not clarified as to what evidence or
material he could not produce at the time of passing of
the judgment in the writ petition even after exercise of
due diligence. Further, the error apparent on record does
not mean that error that can be ascertained after a full
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 4 of 6

exercise of long drawn reasoning on points and such error
which gives rise to review must be an error on mere
looking of the judgment or order and that strikes to the
root of the case, but any error apparent on the face of
record does not appear in the averments of the
petitioner. It, therefore, appears to the Court that the
petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment passed in the
writ petition in the garb of the present review petition,
but the grounds of appeal and the grounds of review are
two different issues. The petitioner might have a cause of
action for the appeal, but the same may not be the
grounds for review. It is clear beyond doubt that the
review proceeding is not by way of an appeal and it has
to be strictly inconformity with the scope and ambit of
Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The review petition can
only be entertained on the grounds enumerated in the
aforesaid provision.
6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
consideration of the submission as advanced by the
petitioner in person and taking into account the
averments made by the review petitioner in the review
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 5 of 6

petition keeping in view the grounds of review and on a
careful conspectus of the record, this Court is of the
considered view that there is neither any error apparent
on the face of record nor is there any discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which after exercise of
due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review-
petitioner or could not be produced by him when the
judgment was passed in the writ petition and, therefore,
there is hardly any reason to invoke the review
jurisdiction of the Court to recall the judgment passed in
the writ petition and the review-petition filed by the
petitioner-husband is liable to be rejected.
7. In the result, the review petition being
unmerited stands dismissed, but in the circumstance, no
order as to costs.

( G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE






Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
rd
Dated the 3 day of September, 2026/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Sep-2026 20:45:46
Signature Not Verified
RVWPET No.111 of 2025 Page 6 of 6