HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pe‘rifion No.27 of 2009 APPELLANTS 1. Sfa‘re Govt of Chhm‘fisgar‘h, Through Secremr’y Educafion Depar’rmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Disff. - Rafpur‘ (6.6.) 2. Disfr‘icf Education fficer, Bemefara Dis'rf. Durg (6.6.) 3. DisTricT’ EducaTion Officer, Baloda Bazcr DisT’r. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur' & Dur'g Dist. Raipur & Durg (CG). V Jai Pmkash Singh Thakur‘, Aged about 44 year, Asst. Teacher S/o Lu‘re Shri Vedram Thukur' 60W. HS. School Chipar‘a Block- Saja, Disif. Durg (C.G.) 2. Smf. Basan‘ri Shana, Aged aboui 47 years, W/o Shri Ashok Sharma Pancham Diwan Gov‘r. Girls H.S. School Bhcn‘apara Dis’rric‘r Raipur‘ (CG) 3. Sm‘l. Kumari Bai Snhu, Aged aboul’ 61 years, W/o Lm‘e Shri Nohar Singh Sahu, Poncham Diwun Govt. Girls H.S. School Bhm‘apara Disfric’r Raipur (CG) O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on 516.2009) Dhirendra Mishra J: 1. The appellanl-S’m’re and i’rs officers have filed ’rhis application and prayed for review of The order daied 6.2.2009 passed by ihis Cour? in WP. (s) No.82/09. Appellan’rs have also preferred an applica‘rion for condonafion of delay as fhe review pefi‘rion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 das. 2. For The reasons indicafed in The applicafion daied 08.04.2009 for condona‘iion of delay, which is also suppor’red by The affidavif of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, fhe applicaTion for condonafion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. If is settled law that the High Court exercises power of review as a Court of plenary jurisdicfion to prevent mi3carriage of jusfice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. There are no definitive limits to the exercise of the powers of review. The power} O s RESPONDENTS i w y of review may be exercised on The di5covery of new and impormn’r maffer or evidence which, affer‘ fhe exercise of due diiigence, was no? wifhin The knowledge of The per-son seeking The review or could no? be produced by him a’r The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misTake or error apporenT on The face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The limiTa’rions as provided under SecTion 114 read wiTh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.82/O9, iT is evidenT ThaT afTer hearing counsel for The peTiTioner as well as The respondenTs/Sfa‘re in deTail The wriT peTiTion was allowed, subjecT To all verifica‘rions regarding The facTs pleaded in The peTiTion. Various circulars issued by The STaTe from Time To Time referred To in This applicaTion, were also broughT To The noTice of This CourT aT The Time of argumenT 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 appeiianT—STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion being wiThouT any subsTance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Roshan/— QUE)