^ 8NI® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. REVIEW PETITION N0. S ~7 /2011 PETITIONER /t)evnarayan Agarwal S/0 Phulchand Agarwal ^ESPONDENT N0.6^ aged about 50 years R/o near RailwayPhatak ^ Baradwar Tahsil Sakti Distt. Janjgir-Champa. RE^F T PONDENTS \\^^ /^'.y>:, ^^-^ ^yy'Q\/: 1^^v PETITIONER VERSUSE I- State ofChhattisgarh , Through the Secretory (Bhoo Arjan Shakha) Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2- The Additional Collector , Janjgir ^ Champa (C.G.) 3- The Sub Divisonal Officer ( Revenue)Sakti Distt.Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4- The Tahsildar Sakti Distt. Janjgir- Champa 5- The Nayab.Tahsildar, Sakti Distt. Janjgir ^ Cmapa(C.G.) 6- §adhuRam Mahant S/0 Late Shri Chhatti Das Mahant, aged about 55 years R/o Village Dumapara, Tahsil Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 7- Mukul Das S/o Phandhiva aged about 60 years R/o Vllage Dumpara, Tahsil-Sakti Distt. Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. XI-HC—78 ^T^T ^T f^'IW ^2H ^TT^T'^^W ^ j :r 's'-sf '^snzn^pT, '^'^T!'TTS, fsi<rii'l4li,< "RmW^l?ra?"""""""""'""""""-"""--""T^200 ^n^T ^^ (^t^^T) ?rwn '(rft^T ^n^i BeviewP^titionJio.57y_201J, Petitioner Respossdents tn Chamber [Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J.i 18.8.2011 This review petition t review oforder dated 4.1.2i The review petition hi an application (I.A. No.l) review petition as also condonation of delay, it operation of right leg, the in ttme. Neitlier any medical been specifically stated in ^FrfoT^ 'RF-fcff ^ fe^ TfW^K ^ atfcW W^T Versus Devnarayan Agrawal State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. ^as been filed by fhe petitioner seeking ) 11 passed in W.P. No.6611/05. is been filed aft.er delay of 83 days and por condonation of delay in filing tlie |been filed. In the application tbr Ihas been fadrlv stated that due to j)etitioner could uot file review petition certificate has been ffled nor it has tfhe application as to the date on which the petitioner was declar^d medically fit by the doctor. Even ofhenvise, the petition for lieview appears to be based on frivolous groinids. The petitioner w^s duty served with the notice and he was represented by a cour^sel. Ou fhe date fh.e order was pas^^d "s%^i XI-HC—78 ~S^ ^TT^TT, '^•^TT^, f^di<-)L[< -r 37T^T^l ^i<^ '(TSH ^TT^T $b^i<=t> 'ETW^T'^TRF ^HW^Tf^T ^^\ ^n^i T^SK (>Ti^3'Q^) -2 by fhis Court on 4.1.2011, ttiere was no order of restoration and in fact, it has been passdd subsequently on 14.2.2011. Ttiis Court passed the order takij preferred by respondent No.l has been dismissed for ^ Subsequent restoration of ^ seek review of the orden stated before this Court that •T-n, 200 ^Tqf^rqt-^f 'qrf<ctf ^ fe^T- Tf^$K •^4f(TH3TT^T ag mto consideration that the appeal 6 against fhe order of Addl. Collector rssit of prosecution on 4.12.2009. ippeal cannot be made a grouiid to VEoreover, the petitloner has falsely he was not served with the notice of writ petition. Therefore, tli|e facts were not placed before the Coi-irt. The records shows |that notice was duly served on fhe petitioner by registered pt>st and an acknowledgement was received. Not only this, the |pet.itioner was duly represented by a counsel, who appeared in ti|ie case and contested the matter. In the absence of there being appeared was not given 'Vakjalatnama' and aufhority to appear on behalf of the petitioner, fh^ most frivolous. any pleading that the counsel who review petition^ to say the least^ is The review petition fh^refore has no merit apart from saiiie being barred by delay of as i^iay as 83 days. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordiil^gly dismissed. Sd/- MamndraMohanShrivastava Judge Piayeei-i ...........±._..