StaglB Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. H 5 / 2011 (Arising out of the judgment and order dated 08.02.2011 passed by Your Lordship in T.P. (Q No.02/2010) ^ APPLICANTS APPELLANT A^ ^^^ .^".^v"^'\ ^•'^,yy^ ~ ^-^ (<?^^>...^^' ^A.-'" ^ ^A^ ^ RESPONDENT ^Smt. Mamta Shrivastava W/o. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged about 33 years R/o. SHivdhari Colony Ambikapur Dist.: Surguka (CG). YERSUS .Shailendra Kumar ^ Shrivastava S/o. Shri B P Shrivastava Aged about 34 years Occupation: Sub- Engineer R/o. Ward No.-15 Jhalap, P.S. Pithoura, Dist.: Mahasamund (CG). REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRQCEDURE 1908 ^s^Cos HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT Appellant RESPQNDENT Review Petition No. 43 of 2011 Smt. Mamta Shrivastava Versus Shailendra. Kumar APPLICATIONUNDER^ECTjON1JAOFJ^..E_Cg_DE_Q.F_CtViLP_RQCEDURi (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal.J.) Present : Shri N.Naha Roy, Advocate for the appticant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 08.08.2011) 1. Heard Shri N.Naha Roy, Counsel for the review petitioner in Chamber under the provisions of Rule 90(2) of the Hlgh Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. By this petition, the applicant seeks iieview of the order dated 08.02.2011, passed in TPC No. 2/2010 (Mamta Shrivastava v. Shaitendra Kumar Shrivastava). 3. This Court, with the consent of the parties, after having considered all the aspects of the matter, ailowed the petition ^nd transferred the petitioner's case from Family Court, Mahasamund to Family Court, Bilaspur, holding that "petitioner's wife has no one in her family except to her parents to escort her during her journey from Amblkapur to Mahasamund". 4. After hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant on the grounds taken in the review petition, this court is of the ppinion that the applieant has failed to make out any ground Sahu for review of the order dated 08.02.2011. Moreover, the order has been passed with the consent of both the parties. Under the garb of the review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge