HIGH COURT OF CHHATYISGARH AT BILASPUR O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on L;6.2009) Dhirendra Mishru, J: 1. The oppeHon’r-S‘rafe and ifs officers have filed ’rhis applicofion and prayed for review of The order dafed 6.2.2009 passed by This Courf in W.P. (s) No.93/09. Appellan'rs have also preferred an applicafion for condona’rion of delay as The review pe‘rifion has been preferred with a delay of 31 days. 2. For fhe reaSOns indicafed in fhe applicafion da’red 08.04.2009 for condonafion of delay, which is also supporfed by The affidavif of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, fhe applicafion for condona‘rion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. If is sef’rled law fhaf The High Courf exercises power of review as a CourT of plenary jurisdicTion To prevem‘ miscarriage of jusTice or To correcT grave and palpable errors commiTTed by iT. There are no definifive limiTs To The exercise of The powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporTan’r maTTer or evidence which, afTer The exercise of due diligence, was noT wiThin The knowledge of The person seeking The review or could noT be produced by him aT The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misTake or error apparenT on The face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The ............. Review PeTifion No.29 of 2009 APPELLANT5 1. STuTe of Chha’r’risgur‘h, Through: Secretary Depar‘rmenf of Educafion, D.K.S. Bhuwun, Raipur‘ (C.6.) , The Direc‘ror Public Ins‘rrucfion, Chha‘rfisgarh Governmen’r Raipur, Di‘sTricT Raipur (6.6.) . The DIS‘rric’r EducaTion Officer, District. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENT Smf. Shaiia Pandey Now Parmanand, Aged ubou)‘ 53 years, W/o Girish Parmanand, Assisfanf Teacher Governmenf Boys Middle School Naiia, Disfricf Janjgir Champa~ (C.G.) Iimifqfions as provided under Sec’rion 114 read wiTh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal of fhe order under review and original record of WP. (s) No.93/09, i‘i is evidenf fhaf affer hearing counsel for The pefifioner as well as ’rhe respondenfs/sfafe in defail The wrif pe’rifion was allowed, subjecf fo all verifications regarding The fac’rs pleaded in fhe pefifion. Various circulars issued by fhe 5Tafe from Time 1'0 Time referred ’ro in fhis applicai‘ion, were also brought fa The nofice of fhis Court aT The Time of argumenf as is evidenT from reading of The order under review. In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appellanT—STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review pefifion being wiThouT ony subsTance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. , Sdl’ . a axawlsm Dhl‘e . “ 3 age