IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARtiAT BILASPUR Single Bench Civil Revision No_r>M /2006 Applicants :- € •</.^ Respondents :- JRaghupat Rao Bhonsle aged 55 years son of Shri Shankar Rao Bhonsle, resi- dent of Simga, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur(C.G-) VERSUS ^Nitesh Lal aged 25 years son of I. Lal Christian, Shopkeeper, resident of Simga, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Civil Revision UnderSectionTlS ofThe Code OfCivil Procedure. Being AQgrieved by the impuaned order passed in Civil Suit no. no. 37-B/2004('Now .\^'l C.S.No. 18 A/2006) Raahupat Rao Bhonsle Versus Nitesh Lal, dated 13.03.2006 passed bv the bvil Judae Class II Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, the copy of the order alonawith Judaement and Decree Dated 08.03.2006 is annexed as Annexure A-l. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T(<^i4) <cTSIT3TR?T5bHI<=b ^^ 3^T ^JI^Id^, ^TTl^^Ko, facrlKriy , c^/^.C//^^ 2^<-/Q_ ^INdl sb^lcb * <~r* *^* ^* *<y> *!** *\^T 200<. C^ ^ ' 1 ^l/o^ 311^1 ^^tch (^i^^) ^TT^K^cTW^T 07.09,2006 Shri Kamai Pandey, ie^ The matter is jisted on However, learned cou| copy of the impugned order hj pointed out by the office stan^ Heard on admission. The rsvlsion is directel by jearned Civii Judge, Cias^ appjicatjon of the appjlcant decree and for aijowing com^ 21.8.2000, has been rejected.| Learned counsel for th^ in fact inadvertentiy passed has the jurisdiction to correct I have heard Searned irnpugned order of the Court ^ The Court beiow has rj flnding that after passing th| C.P.C. goes to show that th^ prayer of the applicant and as the order passed by the C dismissed. cbi^I^i^^ wMf ^ te^t <[^<-^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T irned counsel for the appiicant. jefault. isei for the appiicant submits that certified ss aiready been fiied and as such the default s cured. j against the order dated 13.3.2006 passed "11, Baioda Bazar, DJstt-Raipur by which the seeking modification in the judgment and ensation at the rate of Rs. 50/n per day from ) appjicant submlts that the above order was )y omission and therefore, the Court below he sarne. counsei for the appjjcant and perused the eioy^. ghtly rejected the appiication by recordjng a 9 judgment, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to review its judg|nent. Bare perusai of Section 152 of the •re was no power to the Court to grant the such i do not find any iiiegajity or infirmity in ourt below. Accordingiy, the revision is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^