fl\fvs"^ r~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram: Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ, Review Petition No.10 of 2010 Applicant Appellant Respondents Vs 1) 2) Shyamta Prasad Sahu, aged about 57 years, s/o. Bhagwat Prasad Ex-Pond Moharrir, Kanji House, Mahmand, Bilaspur (CG). State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, -Bilha, Dist.Bilaspur (CG). (Review under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908) Present: Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay.-counsel for the appellant. Mr. JameerAkhtarLohani, Panel Lawyer fortheState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23-8-2011) Per T.P. Sharma, J. The applicant has filed this review petition for review of the order dated 23-2-2007 passed by learned single Bench in Second Appeal No. 230 of 2003. This review petition has been filed after delay of six days of its limitation. Heard on I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant petition, I.A.No.2,application for taking documents on p^"1'.' lls> '.. .-< rf?-: ^.-p-%^.,, /./-^ ~Y S •,-'?S;a3ftk B a record and I.A.No.3, application for amendment of the review petition. 3. Learned single Judge has dismissed Second Appeal No. 230/2003 at the motion stage itself by order dated 23-2-2007 on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of IVIathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., and others, reported in AIR SCW 1230. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that delay caused in filing the review petition is bona fide. He further submits that he has filed the application for amendment in review petition on the basis of document dated 2-8-1970 i.e., initial appointment order of the applicant, which he received under Right to Information Act, afterfiling ofthis petition. 5. Earlier the application filed by the preserft applicant under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking the document dated 15-9-1970 on record was dismissed vide order dated 23-2-2007. There is no justification in filing such application for taking document on record and consequential amendment thereto after lapse of more than 23 years of the limitation. Initially suit filed on behalf of the applicant has been dismissed in the light of the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 19-12-1975 which is a document subsequent to the aforesaid document and was in existence at the time of final judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, we do not find any ground for condoning the delay in filing the instant petition for review of the order dated 23-2-2007. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs. ^5S»—T-| Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N.ChaRdrakar Judge Raju ^-<L •^^'