HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pe'l'i‘rion No.32 of 2009 APPELLANTS 1. Sfa’re of Chhai‘fisgarh Through: Secretary, Educafion Depar’rmen’r, D.K.S. Bhawan, Disfricf-Raipur (CG) 2. The Disw‘ricf Educa‘rion Officer, Dis‘rricf Janjgir Champa (CG) 3. B!ock Educa‘rion Officer, Block Nawagarh, Disf. Janjgir Chumpa (CG) Vs RESPONDENT Dev Lal Sonwani, Aged abouf 45 years, S/o Shri Paras Ram Sonwani, Head Masfer at Governmen’r Primary School Thu‘rhi (Sarkhon) Block Nawagarh, Disfric’r Janjgir Champa (CG) ORDER (In chamber) (Passed on LL6.2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J: 1. The appellanT—Sfafe and ifs officers have filed fhis applica’rion and prayed for review of fhe order da’red 6.2.2009 passed by fhis Cour’r in W.P. (s) No.393/O9. Appellam‘s have also preferred an application for condonafion of delay as The review pefifion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. . For fhe reasons indicafed in fhe applicafion dafed 08.04.2009 for condonafion of delay, which is also suppor’red by fhe affidavi’r of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, The applica‘rion for condonafion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. . If is seffled law fhaf fhe High Court exercises power of review as a Cour’r of plenary jurisdicfion To preven'r miscarriage of jus’rice or fo correct grave and palpable errors commiffed by if. There are no defini’rive limifs To The exercise of The powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on'The discovery of new and imporTam‘ mafTer or evidence which, afTer The exercise of due diligence, was noT wiThin fhe knowledge of The person seeking The review or could noT be produced by him aT The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misTake or error apparenT on The face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The Ed C T Roshan/— limi‘ra’rions as provided under Secfion 114 read wi’rh Order 47 of 1’he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.393/09, i‘r is evident ‘rha’r offer hearing counsel for ’rhe pemioner as well as ’rhe respondenfs/Sm’re in de’roil The wrif pefi‘rion was oiiowed, subjec’r To oil verificofions regarding The facfs pleaded in fhe pefifion. Various circulars issued by 1’he Sfafe from fime f0 Time referred fo in This applicaTion, were also broughT To The noTice of This CourT aT The Time of argumenT as is evidenT from reading of The order under review. In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appellanT—STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion being wiThouT any subsTance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ’ 5di—