, b4 ”W 2005 mngie Bench: Hcn‘me (22$.7‘2w9 (m Chamber):— The petitioner has filed this tm wrder dated 5-1-2009 passed No.342i2008. The petitioner has condonation of deiay as the review petition has been preferred with a deiay of 153 days. i i i :av.‘ :tw :w‘ai’mwv— :-5/9< i ij' Wm. - mm mm appiication and prayed for review of by this Court in Contempt Petiticm also preferred an appiication far Shri Dhirendm Mishra, J. it is sewed law that fhe Higi‘ Coun exerciees power of review as a Court of pienary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and paipabie errore committed by it. There are no definite iimite to the exercise of poirvere of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercieeE of due diiigehoe was not within the knowledge of the hereon eeeiring ireview or could not he produced by him at the time when the order was made. it may be exercised Where some mietake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. ‘ wwwfmaim i i WW": Wiffir‘m‘im‘wy m i paimami PETiTiONER: Kariik Ram Sahu, S/o Jagannathiya Sahu, Aged abcui 62 years, R/o Viii. Mehtara, Paiwari Circie No.26, Biiaigarh, Diett. Raipur —Versue- RESPONDENT: Mr. Senmani Bore, Coiiector, Disti. Raipur Barve However, the power is to be exeroi ed within the Hmitation as pmvided under Section 114 read with Orde 47 of the Code of CM} Procedwe; 1908‘ After perusal of the order nder review and original record of Contempt Petition No.342/2008, i m of the opinion that no groundg, ao grated above, are availabie to the patitioner against the impugned order and review appiioation io ti bio to be dismisoedi Accordingiy‘ the review petition and the appii ation for oondonation of deiay are hereby dismieeed in iimine. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 3 aw Sat uh’vn3im’a—wt‘sfxn t a f mm; \ .am 0m» W L200 mm (Wu) m. M, i .W ”éii l arwmfewaz ammm'm »‘% a$wmm$& % ?ix $aifzm “mam