\^s^-. .kAM;-7 .-,. \'.'. INJTHEJION'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR (C.G.l M.C.C.NO. M3 /2006 (ARISING OUT OF C.R. No. 73/051 APPLICANT : (APPLICANT /NON-APPLICANTI SfOife ^arvan Singh, s/o Teja Singh, aged 65 years, 'Delhi Fency Stores, Malviya Road, Raipur, Residential address- Raipur, Tahsil 8s District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT (DfON-APPUCANT/ APPLICANTI /Snit. Pushpa Madnani, w/o. late Murlidhar Madnani, aged 47 years, years S/o Shri Kacharu Ram Sahu, R/o. Panchsheel Nagar, Q.P.S.M.-4, Raipur, Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW/RECALl^OF QRD^SR DATED 20.02.06 PASSED IN CIVIL REVISION NQ. 73/05 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. XI-HC-22 ~s^ -^\wi, fs-^ww, hwuy ail^T^iT h-v^ sii^r »*iich 'yf^a .^..C,C.,.»YO;J|3^(^ SII^I ^RITW: •dittl 'hl^t-lifl-l THIRJf ^ ftl^. <^^|< ^r STpgil sii^i 10/03/200e Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Counse Heardon admission. Non-applicant a landlord; Chhattisgarh Accommodation Cc flled application under Sectipn 23| of suit accommodation against| for the applicant. |in accordance with Secfion 23(J) of the |ntrol Act, 1961 (henceforth, 'the Act") ;A) ofthe Act for recovery of possession the applicant/tenant before the Rent Controlling Authority (hencefort^, "the AuthQrity"). In that eviction proceeding the Authority pass^d an order ;for eviction against the applicant. Being aggneved b^ that eviction order dated 27/05/2TO5 applicant field a Civil Revision under Section 23(E) of the Act. The revision was registered as Refvision No.73/2005 and was listed on 20/02/20)6 for final hearing. The applicant was presenfin Court afong with his Senior Advocate Shri Sreekumar Agrawal and o(her Advocate Shri Anand Kumar Gupta. Non-applicant was represented |hrough her cqunsel Smt. Fouzia Miiza. Applicant on that day, when the <;asewas taken up, prayed for withdrawal of the revision with a request tojallow him six months' time to vacate the suit premises to which learne|J counsel for the non-applicant has no objection. The Court consideited the prayer of the applicant and passed an order vide which the revislton was dismissed' as withdrawn with a direction to the appliGant/tenart to vacate the suit premises just after expiry of six months. The appli^ant signed the order-sheet in presence of his aclvocate Shri Anand Kumar pupta whp also identified the applicant. _&__—— XI-HC-22 ~s^~;WvPi, »fll*t'is,'r«!<ni^y ailtn^l h-i\^i 3T|^I ? nict) '^(^I nfn >ao' Applicant is a tenant and whose favo.ur the Authority has pa^s accommodation. Applicant the tenafit came up in revision. The orderof| Theapplicant by withdrawal of revi^ for evicting ttie suitaccommodationj of this review petition, he wants tc| aGcommodation by lingering on the[ from taking lawful possession over understood six months time is beind application on merit for getting stay| therefore, the consent for withdr4 ^Tqicrt^"hrT TfR^ff ^ 'fe^St ^l^K ^7 3iPtPT 3:flt?[ i-applicant is a woman landlord in fesed an order for eviction of the suit who instead ofvacating the house |the Authority was dated 27/05/2005. Mpn further obtainedsix months time But now, it appears that in the garb retain the possession over the syit litigatioh and to prevent the landford suit accommodation. ttie This review petition has t^een filed on the ground that he allowed to him after dismissal of his from Hon'ble the Supreme Court and wal of civil revision was given by misunderstanding. Application forreview can bq considered if it satisfies conditions envisaged under Order 47 of the Cj.P.C., i.e., (a) the discovery of new and important matter or evidence w|iich after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledgeorcotlld not be produced by him at the time when the order made; or (b) on acc^unt of some mistake or error apparent on the face ofthe record, or (c) for a|ny other sufficient reasohs. For allowing application for [review conditions (a) and (b) do not exist in the instant case, SQ far ^s copdition (c) is concerned, when applicant was present jn Court ]along with Senior Advocate Shri Sreekumar Agrawal and other Advo|cate Shri AnandKumar Gupta and not only withdrew the revision but also i|nade a prayer that six monthsjme^be -+- XI-HC-22 ^"T -<iwm<i, OTil'M'is, Isiciiyy 311^(^)1 R-fi* SD^r ^•Hicti '<?f?cf raju ^ sii^r TOnwfffei -3 allowed to him to vacate the in open court in presence of applicai|it appearing for other party. The his signature in order sheet. He was Kumar Gupta and he signed in his| clearly establish thatthere was no| there is no sufficientcause for reviewyig fc It is clear that only in order litigation alive applicant has filed this| legal system and legal profession. 1( impair the sanctity of legal sysf practitioners. The review petition is dismisse|d <^i^ci<i1'f ^wcii' "^ fe^ •t.Fil^K ^; 3ri;tn aii^i accommtidaUon, thereafter order was passed and his advocates and advocate applic^nt accepted the contents by putting jdentified by his advocate Shri Anand presence. All these circumstances room for niisunderstanding hence, the order. retain the possession by keeping application and impliedly malign the such practice is allowed that would em and malign the prestige of Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge