HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR Review Pefifion No.26 of 2009 APPELLANTS 1. STa’re of Chhaffisgarhl Through: Secretary Depar’rmenf 0f Educafi‘on, D.K.S. Bhawan, Dis‘rr‘icf Raipur‘ (6.6.) 2. Dis’rr-icf Education kOfficer', Rajnandgaon, Dis’rm’cf Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Chhuriya, Disfric’r Rcjnandgaon (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS Narendr‘a Kumar Deshlahare, Aged abouT 38 years, 5/0 shri Bhagchand Deshlahare, Assisfan‘r Teacher, Govt. Primary School Aaybandha, Posf-Daufola, P.S. Dongargarh, Via— Bandhabazar, Disw‘ric’r Rajnandgaon. O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on 1;.62009) Dhirendra Mishra, J: 1. The appeHan’r-Smfe and i’rs officers have filed ’rhis applicafion and prayed for review of The order dafed 6.2.2009 passed by This Courf in W.P. (s) No.224/09. Appellam‘s have also preferred an appiicafion for condonafion of delay as fhe review pe’rifion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. . For The reasons indicaTed in The applicaTion daTed 08.04.2009 for condonafion of delay, which is also suppor‘red by The affidavif of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, fhe applica’rion for condonafion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. If is seffled law fhaf fhe High Courf exercises power of review as a Courf of plenary jurisdicfion To prevem‘ miscarriage of jusfice or fo correcf grave and palpable errors commiffed by if. There are no definifive limifs ’ro The exercise of fhe powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporTanT maTTer or evidence which, afTer The exercise of due diligence, was noT wifhin The knowledge of The persan seeking The review or could noT be produced by him aT The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misTake or error apparenT on The face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The Will Iimifa‘rions as provided under Secfion H4 read wi’rh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . Fr‘om perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.224/O9, if is eviden’r Thm‘ ofTer hearing counsel for The peTiTioner as well as The respondenTs/STaTe in deTaii The wriT peTiTion was allowed, subjecT To a” verificaTions regarding The facTs pleaded in The peTiTion. Various circulars issued by The STaTe from Time To Time referred To in This opplicaTion, were also broughT To The noTice of This CourT aT The Time of argumenT aS'is evidenT from reading of The order under reviewf In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appellonT—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. «r ga—