t\ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sll^^l^ SliCP Review Petition No. % Of 2011 PETITIONER : Shri Surendra Pal Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Shri APPELLANT t^^wA 9-Dour \^ i years, \^/o <0^<:^^!^ sheik Bahadur sin§h? Qr- No- .^ a\\^ ..^ ^^"r^ ^- o'*? RESPONDENTS Npn-Applicants 05-A, Street No. 18, Sector-2, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Principal, Delhi Public School, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Administrative Officer, Delhi Public School, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) REVIEW APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COLTRT OF CHHA'PFISQAJIH AT BILASPUR "X PETITIONER APPELLANT RE8PONDENT8 NON-APPLICANTS REVIEW PETmON No. 85 of2011 Shri Sureiidra. Pal Singh, VRR8IJ8 Prmcipal, Delhi Piiblic School^ Maroda & Aswther. REYTRW.APPIJCATTONIJNDRR ORDRR 47 RUT,R 1'OF THE CODE OF CTVTT- PROCEDLTRE. (BY CTRC1JTATION TN CHAMBER) 8B: Hon'Ne Sliri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. ORDER (Pasaed on 22nd day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. The matter is taken iip for consideration m liie- chambCT imder provisions of siib Rule 2 ofRule 90 imder Chapter VI ofthe High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The review petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 07 Jiily, 2011 passed in W.P. (227) No. 3603 of 2011 (Shri Surendra Pal Smgh v. Principat, Delhi Public School ^ Another), by tNs Court^ whereimder the challenge of the .petitioner to tte award dated 29 October^ 2010 passed by tfae Labour Co'art^ Diirg, was dismiss^d. ,3, The sole groimd to review the order dated 07 Jyly, 2011, is that the petitioner- worked for 120 days m six montlis contmuously, thiis, the case may be remitted back to the L^bow Coiirt for fi-esh trial< This groimd was raised neither before the Labour Court in the stMement of claims iior m tMe writ petitioii specifically. By this review petitiosi, the petitioner mtends to re-argiie the matter a fresh. 4, The review petitioner has not pomted oirt any iiiamfest error on the record asid has not fiirther brought mto •the notic^ any new 'facts whidi coiild not be produced eariiCT despite diligent efforts ma.de by th@ petitioner. It is well settied <.:;v 6. prmciples of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly coiifmed to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procediire. Even in exercise of review jimsdiction by tte Higli Court imder Article 226 of the CoiistitiitioiL the applicants have not proAiced any groimd for review. It appears that the petitioner, by presentMion of this review petition seeks an opporhimty to argiie the entire case afi-esh on mCTits usider the garb offhe review petition wNch m not permissible a.nd tenable m law. It is well settled prmciple of law that imder the garb ofreview petition, tfae a.pplicant sho'ald not be permitted to argiie the entire case afresh which would amoimt to convert the review petition mto an appeal and tfae same is not siistamable in law. (See : Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. NirmalKumar Coh-wdhar^, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union oflndia and otker/, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa and others3, Govemment ofTN. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, and Kerl^ State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. andothers5.) As a resiilt and m view oftfae foregomg, the revtew pet.it.ioH is dismissed, rsd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit !A(R 1995 SC 455 "'AIR 2000 SC 1650 3AIR2000SC85 4(200S)2SCC332 5 (2005) 9 SCC 651