^. iH OF CHHATTiSGARH AT HON'SLE H.L. DATTU, CJ. 8 D.R. DESHPiflUKH, J. fn.C.C. No. 332 of 1. Hagru Satnami S/a Basawan Satnami aged about 62 years, resident of Vlllage Sewati, Tahsil & District Silaspur (Oihatti^arh) DEgENDANT 2. Vijay son of Late Tetkuram Satnami, ^^^^"mnVE ^^^^^^yea^^^d^ts of js!s-e"a!5"j. Talapara, Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) VgRSUS 1. Shabblr Hussaln s/o Late Rajjab Ail, .P.I-A.!NILF£S, aged about 59 year^; 2. Abbas Aii s/o Late Raljab Ali, aged about 55 years; DEFtNDANT 3 Smt. Jugmati d/o Basawan Satnami, aged about 46 years, resident of Village Sewati, Tahsil & District yiaspur (Chhatti^arh) .ufcEENDAN_T 4. Chandrashekhar s/o Late Tetkuram, aaed about 35 veare: OFDEFENDANT " -- -- '-- -' 5. Santosh s/o Late Tetkuram, aged about 31 years PCesent: Shrl Upendra Nath A'vvasthl, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raksha Avvasthi, counsel for the petltioners. on 04 April, 2W) ThS foilOWiHy orsl Gfdsr Oi th8 CoUft ^VSS p333^J by ,S 3 ^..-i&A. s ^ s . 1i.i». i^t.iiLS.y, ^t-.^. . This review petition is filed to recali the order passed by this Court on I.A. No. 591 of 2005 in IvI.C.C. No. 531 of 1996. There is delay in filing the review petition, therefore, an app!ioation under Sectlon 5 of the LJmitation Act js also filed. Since v»e intend to rejeot the revlew petition, vve firstly condone the deiay in filing the review petition and thereafter we intend to deoide the review petition on merits. A -^ (2) M.C.C.No.531 -of 1996 was filed by one Teetaku and two others who are residents of Gram Sewati against one Sabbir Hussain and others. The M.C.C. was against the judgment and decree passed by the Triai Court in Civil Suit No. 51-n-1990, dated 13-12-1995. (3) During the pendency of the M.C.C. i.A. No.591 of 2005 came to be filed by the applicants for withdrawal of the M.C.C. Learned Judges ofthis Court after recording the contents ofthe application have disposed of the same by order dated 16-03-2005. The order passed by this Court reads as under:- "This application has been filed by the appeii'ants for wlthdravval of the M.C.C.(FA) against the: judgment and decree dated 13/12/1aa5 passed by the leamed District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 51-A on 990 (Sabbir Husain and another Vs. Tetaku and others). it is stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties out of Court ard the terms or the compromise have aiso been indfcatedtherein." (Emphasis supplied by us) (4) This review petition is filed by one Hagru Satnaml and Vijay who are supposed to be the iegai representatives of the applicant. In fact, after the death of Teetaku, the review petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives. (5) A iearned counsel had appeared for alt the legal representatives. The learned counsel on receiving instructions from the lega! representatives, it appears, had filed I.A. No. 591 of 2005. Now, it is the grievance of the legal representatives that they had not consented for withdrawal of the M.C.C. (6) Thls Court has proceeded So dispose or the M.C.C. on the application flled by the legal representatives of late Teetaku. The iegal representatives were represented by the iearned counsel. Learned counset must have filed an appiication only after receiving proper instructions from hls ciient. Now, some of the i^al representatives of 1 Teetaku on the pretext that they had not corsented for withdrawal of the M.C.C. cannot be maintaining the reviev*' petition before us. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this review petition. Ttierefore, the review petition is requlres to be rejected and accordingly It is rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners, if they so desire, to go before the appropriate forum ror appropriate relief, if time permits. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- ,, Dilip Raosaheb DeshKiukh|j ' Judge 1