QQ) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’N‘ISGARH ' BfLASPUR Wn't Peu‘tion (227] No. 53 14 of 200% Petitioners Non— appiicants Respondents Review Petitioners l. 01 WRIT PEI‘I’I‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 227 ()jf THE CONSTH‘UTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble smi Satish K. Aglihotri J.) Pavan Cultivation Pvt. Ltd., "hrough: Its Dirsctcr D.P.Gandhi, Sfo Late D. Prakash Rao, aged about 61 yeam, 61 Shahid Smarak Ccmplex, Rajbandha, Maidan, Raipur (C.G.} D. P. Gandhi, S/o Late D‘ Prakwsh Ran, 61 yearS, Rio Nnmichand Gédi, Ganjpara, Raipur (C.G.) Anand Surana, Si o Devraj Singh Surana. Rajendra Surana, Sfo Devraj Singh Surana, Res. NC. 1 8s 2 R's Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (0.6.) Nanesh Builders wand; Co. MG. Road Raipur, Through: Director Vinit Jain, S/o Shn' Vijaychand Bothra, Rfo Shajlcndra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1303111 of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur (c.G.} Shxi Prafuli Bharat, Advocate for thn patitioncrs. Snn‘ P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a Ieview petition against the order dated 24.4.2008, passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Review Revenue Case No. RN04 14] R/A-6/44] 2007 {AnnexurePj5). 2. By order dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P] 7) the review application ’ has been» entertained for healing. However, it has been observed that the review was entertained on account of the (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2008) fact that the review application enumerates at least 10 issues which warrants reconsideration by the court. According to the petitioners, as no issues wereframed, the petitioners tiled an application for clarification of 10 issues, which has been dismissed by cider dated l 1.9.2008 (Annexure P] 9). The review can be entertained on the well settled principles of law for which minimum 10 issues or anv other issue is not required. Learned counsel submits that by observing that the application enumerates 10 issues, the petitioners are in diniculty to tile their response. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. l and 2 submits that this may be a mistake. ’l‘here are no issues in the review petition but there are the grounds raised for review. Therefore this observation may be on‘ account of some inadvertent mistake. Be that as it may, since the reply is to be filed to the application for review, the observation with regard to lO issues is frivolous, as the petitioner has to hie his application/ reply to the reasons or grounds stated in the review petition. ’I‘he Board of Revenue mav thereafter consider the review application and pass appropiiate order, in accordance with law. In View of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri J Judge w$w§"a‘mwa«ksatm ‘ r ‘ may .