1w S y HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pe1'i?ion No.34 of 2009 APPELLANTS 1. Sfafe of Chhm‘fisyar‘h, Through Secremr‘y, Educa’rion Depar‘l’mem’, D.K.$. Bhawcm, DisTricT~Raipur (C.G.) 2. The DisTricT Educcn‘ion Officer, Dis‘rricf ~ Janjgir—Champa (CG) 3. Block Educu‘rion Officer, Block— Nawagar'h, Disfr‘ic‘r Junjgir-Champa (CG) Vs Respondent Smf. Kaipana Girolkar, Aged abouf — 5O years, W/o Balkrishan Girolkar, Assistanf Teacher, Gov’r. Sadar Primary School, Janjgir‘, Block Nawagarh, Disfr‘icf— Janjgir' — Champa (CG) / W5 O R D 'E R (In chamber) (Passed on Lg.6.2009) Dhirendra Mishra J: 1. The appellanf-Sfafe and ifs officers have filed This application and prayed for review of fhe order dafed 6.2.2009 passed by This Courf in W.P. (s) No.5531/2008. Appellon’rs have also preferred an applicafion for condonafion of delay as The review pefifion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. For The reasons indicafed in fhe applicafion dafed 08.04.2009 for condonafion of delay, which is also suppor’red by The affidaviT of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, The applicafion for condonafion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. If is seTTled law Thaf fhe High CourT exercises power of review as a Courf of plenary jurisdicTion fo prevenf miscarriage of jusfice or fo correcf grave and palpable errors commiTTed by iT. There are no definiTive limiTs To The exerciSe of fhe powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporTanf maTTer or evidence which, afTer The exercise of due diligence, was nof wiThin fhe knowledge of The person seeking The review or could noT be produced by him of The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misfake or error apparenT on The face of The «WW Kl“ WW x wmww‘ record is found. However, fhe power is f0 be exercised wifhin The Hmifafions as provided under Seciion 114 read wiih Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P.(s) No.5531/O8, if is evideni *hai offer hearing counsel for The pefiiioner as weii as 1he responden’rs/S’ra’re in deioii, The wri‘r pe‘iifion was allowed, subjecf f0 all verifications regarding The fads pleaded in the peii‘iion. Various circulars issued by The Siaie from Time fo lime referred To in This application, were also brought i'o 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 appeiionT~$TaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion being wiThouT any subsTance g deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Roshanll f’- A so! 9h“wéié wisbia 3udge