E-Hmi CQUgT OF CHMgWE5G§§H A? $ILASPUR ¥§E§%§@ner £esgmnggmt W.R££E‘E.2g?} §o£§i§ 0f 2%Qg U.D. Lohani V§R§w$ M/s Dmp Kumar & Brothers GRDgR 9a» 905? ma M APML‘ 209g Sd/- ‘ ’w Dhirendra Misha Judge §‘§EGR QQUEW— OF CH§§AHE§GAR§“§ »AT §ELASWVJR ?@%§?ii@m%r é’wSpgmdem §7/ Wr’,?u{§rh22?i N5LE£E§ a? 23%g U.D. Lohani, $/o Shri IbrahimLohanL Aged abaut 71 years, Resident of Ward No.03, Mahasamund, Tahsi! Eistrict—Mahasamund (CG) ¥E EfyUS M/s Diiip Kumar & Brothers, Proprietor Sheep Firm, Through : Proprietar Smt. Pramiia Sakarkar, Aged about 61 years, D/o Yashwant Sakarkar, R/o in front of Govt Hospital, Ward No.1, Main Road, M'ahésamund, District Mahasamund (CG) §3resem : Shri Prakash Tiwari, counse! for the petitioner. Q §§ § E R {Pagged on ISTB‘prii, 2009) iBMmrEén-s‘i i9§§§§aml .E h). LJ‘A Heard on admission. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.02B/2006, whereby his application under Order 47 uie 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure P/7) has been rejected. a From perusal of the order of Annexure P/7 it appears that the learned Additional District Judge had directed the petitioner/plaintiff,'vide order dated 31.7.2006, to move suitable application for amending the memo of appeal in retation to some aliegations againet me advocate of the opposite party. in compliance of the eaid order, the petitioner propoeed amendment vide his application dated 14.8.2006 and the same was rejected on 26.0.2000 with Lu an observation that the application for amendment is nat §nacc0rdance with the direction of the Caurt. The getitianer was further directed to incorporate the error of 351w ond factg committed by the Court below as a ground for appeal. The petitioner’s appiication for review of the above order has been rejected by the impugned order with the Simiiar obeervations and directions. On due .corisideration of the reasons assigned in the impugned order as weii as the order of Annexure P/7 and other documents avaiiabie on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no iiiegaiity, infirmity or jurisdictionai error committed by the Court beiow, which has occasioned faiiure of justice or grave injustice to the petitioner/plaintiff warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingiy, dismissed. Dhirendra Mishlja‘i Judge Sd/-