i : | HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJON BENCH CORAEVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPLICANT (Respondentno.1) M.C.C.No. 232 of 2006 Pitamber S/o Hari Singh Adhariya, aged about 58 years, agriculturist, R/o Village Hadha, Tahsil and District Janjgir- Champa C.G. Versus Loknath S/o Nankiram Adhariya, aged about 63 years, Agricuiturist, R/o Village Hadha, Tahsil and District Janjgir- Champa C.G. Smt. Rambai, W/o Patela Suryayanshi, aged about 48 years. Malikram S/o Guha Suryavanshi, aged about 38 years. Respondent no.2 and 3 are resident of Village Singhaideep, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa C.G. APPUCATSON FOR REVIEW UNDERORDER47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 NON-APPLICANTS 1 (Petitioner) (Respondent no.2) 2. (Respondent no.3) 3. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ORDER sth (12m September,2008) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. 2. The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 05-01-2006, passed in W.P. No. 1162/2005, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 Loknath was allowed and while setting aside the trial Court's order dated 03-07-1996 dismissing the plaintiff's application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the ptaintiff was allowed to get the documents examined by the hand writing expert. 3. The petitioner had filed a Speciai Leave Petition against the above order dated 05-01-2006, passed in W.P. No.1162/2005, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17-04-2006 In the following terms: "Counse! for the petitioner states that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that time could not have been granted on 7.4.1993 since on that day the matter was not before the Trlal Court. Counsel submits that the date 7.4.1993 is a mistake and it should-have been 7.4.1992 and this fact shouid have been brought to the notice of the High Court. If that be so, it is aiways open to the petitioner to move the High Court for review of its order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed but with the iiberty to the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be available to hSm in law." 4. it is in view of the above quoted observation that the petitioner has fjjed this review petition. 5. The sole ground taken by the petitioner in thi's review petition is that the order dated 05-01-2006 passed In W.P. No.1162/2005 is based on the assumption that the civil suit was subbu never posted before the triaf Court on 07-04-1993, whereas in fact, the date fixed beforethe trial Court was 07-04-1992. 6. The order dated 05-01 -2006 in W.P.No.1162/2005 came to be passed on a cumulative consideration of all the reievant facts andcircumstances of the case and the same was affirmed by the Apex Court Vide order dated 17-04-2006, wherein it was mentioned that 'we do not find any reason to interferewith the impugned order'. 7. That apart, permitting the plaintiff vide order dated 05-01-2006 will not prejudice the petitioner/defendant as the petitionerwjll get anopportunity of rebuttal. 8. In this view of the matter,wedo not find any ground warranting review of the orderdated 05-01-2006, passed in W.P. No. 1162/2005. 9. The reviewpetition, therefore, is dismissed notwithstanding that it is barred bytime also. 10. Consequently, M.(C).P. No.760/2006 also stands disposed of: Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge