^ ..^ g|n|le<e(i8h ^^ '^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , REVIEW PETITIONNO. 31 OF<^i& ^li ^'^ ' ( Arising out of First Appeal No. 163/2009) ^•:"^y (fW /^T BETWEEN ^"..-•' .^ ^- ^y^y /l: Gopiram Patel S/0 Sunderlal Patel, aged about 38 years, occupation- Agriculturist. 2, Manohar Patel S/0 Sunderlal Patel, aged about 36 years Occupation- Agriculturist. 3. Shyam Lal Patel S/0 Sunderlal Patel, aged about 33 years Occupation- Agriculturist. All are R/0 Village- Kosmanda Police Station- Pusaur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) /^^^. /y ^-"~ '^'y^ ^' ^s^ %?b?^r.' ^ PETITIONERS APPELLANTS AND Smt. Mongra Chauhan Widow of Late Urkula Chauhan, aged about 58 years, Occupation- House Wife R/0 Village- F>usaur near (Police Station), Police Station- Pusaur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). •Sint. Rukmani Chauhan D/0 Urkula Chauhan aged about 42 years Occupation- House Wife R/0 Village- Shivpuri Post- Gerwani, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh though Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.). Narsingh Prasad S/0 ChhattEir Sai Thawait, aged about 70 years, R/0 Village- Pusaur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 1 14 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CFVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.10.2010 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN FIRST APPEAL N0. T63/2009 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.81 of 2011 PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS -Versus- Gopiram Patel & others Smt. Mongra Chauhan & others Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra^J. ORDER IN CHAMBER (^1_/9/2011) 1. By this review petition, the petitioners/appellants have prayed for review of thejudgment dated 4-10-2010 delivered in F.A. No.163/2009 whereby the first appeal preferred by the petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed. 2. The scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The petitioners/appellants pray for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidatjon either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another, [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. 3. Perused the grounds taken by the petitioners/appellants in the petition for "< I _ review. 4. The judgment under review has been delivered after hearing the parties at length and perusal of the entire record of the trial Court, therefore, in view of the above settled position of law, no ground for review is available to the petitioners againstthe impughed order. 5. The petition is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Barve Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge