^...•<^^^ ^^f^> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C. C. No^l /2006 \^^^ APPLICATION FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 4f RULE 1 OF CPC Applicant/ Respondent/ Defendant Non-applicant No.l Appellant Non-applicant No.2/ 2) Respondent/ Defendant No.2 Chaturbhuj Murarka, aged ^'about 57 years, Son oflate Shri Mahaveer Prasad Murarka, resident of Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Kadeera Bee, aged about 89 years, widow of late Karimuddin, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Shahnaz Begum, aged about 36 years, daughter of Jahruddin, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Non-applicants/ Appellants 2-A Sheikh Basheer, aged about ^ 33 years, S/o. Wahiduddin, R/o. Khapargaii^j, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2-B Lallu, aged about 36 years, ^ S/o. Wahiduddin, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3) Kamalnisha (Quamaruddin), ^- aged about 66 years, widown of late Abbas Beg, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) at present residing at Talapara, T" ./^!^ ^y^:^. /"^^^¥'% //^^' . "\ .'i .f^^^n^ ili \: -^KSK^Q^^^ Jfj '^' -?y ' -^ ^/ -A.- ^/ 4) ^) 6) ^" 7) ^' 10 ^O) Bilaspur (C.G.) Jahruddin, aged about 60 years, S/o late Karimuddin, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District BUaspur (C.G.) Sofia Bee, aged about 66 years, daughter of late Karirauddin, R/o. Khaparganj, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (G.G.) Mohd. Imran, aged about 23 years, S/o. late Mohd. Ayyub, R/o. Talapara, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mohd. Iqbal, aged about 43 years, S/o. Mohd. Yusuf, R/o. Talapara, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mchd Zameel, aged about 43 years, S/o. Mohd. Yusuf, R/o. Talapara, Bilaspur Tahsil and •District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mohd. Jameel, aged about 43 years, S/o. Mohd. Yusuf, R/o. Talapara, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur througte»^ its Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bila^spur (C.G.) 11) State of Chhattisgarh through ^ The District Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 QF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED --^: _ - - _ —^^— 6.02.2006 PASSED IN FIRST APPEAL N0.1^4/2005 BY THE HON»BLECOURT r XI-HC-78 3T1^T^)Tf^TW (T§Tr3n^T$h^l<=b ^r 3'^T ^ll^ld^, ^Tfl^4!^, f®<dl<My ^l^dl sb*<lcb t*****~*4***«**^*>****^ 200 3ll^l ^5|c»i(^fg^^) ^l ^<TRR:^cf3TI^T &IVISION BENCH: - HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MlSHM. JJ. 28-6-2006 Shri K.A. Ansari, 5r. ^ for the applicant. Heardon M.C.P. No."; review petition against the whereby first appeal filed allowed and the trial court wa^ As per office report review petition, whereas, in 14 has been mentioned that there The grounds taken in th that the applicant herein has and in that accident the a| treatment is contipuing and fr was on bed reset due to me January, 2006. Affidavit in si We do not find any that in the first instance as p< petition is of 32 days/where obi^I<n4)'i ^i^<nT^'teu^l'<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3:TT^T AND Jdvocate with Shri R.L. Bajpai/ Advocate 7941/06 for condonation of deby in filing the (udgment of this Court dated 6.2.2006 |)y non-applicants No.l &, 2 herein was directed to proceedwith the suit. ^here is delay of 32 days in fiiing the ^e application fqr^con^onatifiCLof deiay it is delay of 30 days. |is application for condoning the deioY are Imet with a serious accident on i.10.2003 Ipiicant sustained grievous injuries, his fom 15.2.2006 to 23.4.2006 the applicant |jical problems created in the month of Ipport of liiisapplicationhasbeenfiied. sub^stanc^jn this application/for the reason ^r officereportdelayinfiiingthe review as/in the application condonation of 30 XI-HC-78 3'^r ^iiqid^, ^Td^'i?, [s«ni^y W^T^T^Jch cT^T3TT^Tst)^IGh *11+1(<11 Sl»*11<sh ^200 ^rq^?!^ ^TTW^cTW^T —2. days delay has been prayed fo <=bi^f<n<f)Ti ^i^<rtT^tec^'<Ri«i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T ( f. As far as other ground is concerned, even if the applicant was a<pvised for bed rest, it has not been mentioned that there were no] the advocate and file the revl other famity members who can contact ew petition. Moreover, theadyocate of the applicant herein was presei^t on 6.2,2006 whenthejud9ment under review was passed and as p^ certified copy of judgment obtdned on 22.2.2006, then r this application, the application for Iwas filed on 7.2.2006 and same was where was the difficulty in filing the review. The person who obtainejd the certified copy couid have fited the '^ petition for review after consi|lting wi1+i the advocate dnd as such, the applicant has not been able to ^how reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the applicat|on for condonation of delay is rejected. Even otherwise/on mer |t also we do not find any substoince in th is review petition. For reviev^ of judgment under Order 47 Ruie 1 of CPC powers vested with the Court are that the Court is entitle to review its order/judgment on <|iccount of some mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, or| postulate the rehearing of the| matter of Meera Bhanja V. 1995 (1) SCC 170 held thaj proceedings dre not by way confined to the scope and amb for any other reason, which does not dispute. "nie Hon'ble Apex Gourt in the Sijpmala Kumari Choudhary reported in 11 It isweli settled that the review of an appeat and have to be strictly it of Order 47 ftule 1 CPC." The review XI-HC-78 3^ ^l^lcrt^, ^Tfl^^Ko, ^^l^^< *<l*1dl Sti+licft W^TcRT^TW cT^T3TT^T5h^l<^ ^ 200 ^i ^5<cb (^i^^T) ^ ^TTW^f^TW^T -^ of a judgment or an order c new and important matters o diiigence was not within th^ important matter or evidenc^ chl^f^41T1 ^IH^lT^te^^^K ^3Tf^R'3TT^T \ basis that Jearned triat coij defendants fiied under Clauj rejecting the p laint ought to only. Same judgment was ^uid be sought: (a) from the discovery of evidence which after the exercise of due e knowledge of the applicant; (b) such could not be produced by the applicant at the timewhen the decree wa^ passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or ©rrora^parent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason'. In the present case, jijdgment dated 6.2.2006 was passed on the irt white allowing the appiication of the ;e (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 of the CPC and have considered the contents of the plaint passed after hearing the counsef for respective parties and the pourt observed that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is (trima-fdcie perverse, The Court below has dismissed the suit of the piantiff by hotding that the suit is barred by !aw of jimitation. In paragrjiph 8 of 1+ie impugned order jt has been mentioned that the plaintif^ learnt about the impugned ju new cause of action. In the | has not pleaded as to on what dote she jgments and there is no pleading regarding aforesaid circumstonces, it woutd be held that the appiiccint had the krtowfedge of Judgment and^^ 9-86 & 31-3-98 on the resp^ctive dates. The above reoisoning pf the Court beiow is contrary to ^he pleadings of the plaintiff. Thus/the XI-HC-78 3^ ^liqidq, ^TO<M^<o, R<ni^y 3TI^T^Tf^TW cTSTT3TI^?T$h^I<=h .,-lf ."- INP ^l^dl sb*<|cb ********************* ^ 200 3T(^T^T5ra? 5^TT^K^f?cf3T^?T -'A+ plaintiff in paragraph 12 of demolis|iing the Judgment and decree onl| in December, 2002, as the No.l jn the written statemel^ Court of 3 Civil Judge, Cla^ the pbintiff within the Court after 24-4-2003 and <|> for permission before the disputed piot after Thus, from over atl reading plaintiff did not have cause suit. It is settled iaw that (d) of Ruiell of Order 7 of the facts mentioned in the has been mentioned that thel in civit suit No.8<M>A/79 and j^ in civil suit No<l<-A/97 wer^ were never served on the pl not binding on the plaintiff. decrees when counsei for month of December, 2002| 23-10-200t on behalf of res pecpniary 4)i<4ld4)^ ^i^^T^:tel^'<Rt«i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T ^he plaint has pleaded that he teamt about after inspection of record of those case^ aforesaid objection was taken by defendant it fiied in Civil Suit No.63-A/2000 'm the |s-I and the cause of action a9ain arose to territorial Jurisdiction of 1+ie trial |>n 30-4-2003 when defendant No.l applied Corporation for constmction over the the marked portion of construction. of the plaint, it Gannot be said that the ^f action afresh for filing the sub^equent while considering the provisions of Chuse fhe C.P.C. the Court is required to look into t laint on ty cxnd in the p iaint/ in paraaut2, it Ijudgment and decree dated 6-9-86 passed ^dgment and decree dated 31-3M-98 pas^ed obtained by committing fraud, sumrnons l|aintiff and, therefore, those decrees are The piaintiff came to Know about those plaintiff inspected those files in t^ after fifing the written statement on ^ondent No.l in the earlier ^uit. In paraBM21 ^6 i|he XI-HC-78 3:5? •^1<41C(^, yTn«'1<l<o, fslOK-l^ ^l^dl sb*4|cb ^[200 3ll^l ^5|cb (l^¥3^^) 3TI^T^)T^i<t) cT8Tr3TT^Tsh'^i<+) ^. ^RTTW ^ri?cT W^T mentibned ^ie Fbr Noj63 •h0|t Dhe of the pbint, it has been 1 24-4-2003 and 30-4-2003 when and thereafter filed this suit. the instantsuit filed bytheplain| fiiing of the earlier suit consideration for the reason t!' declaration and injunction againsj present suit has been filed with no knowledge about the judgment obtained by respondent No.l herei^ In view of the above facts, in the judgment dated 6.2.2006| there is no error apparent on tl^e important matfer or evidence wh ic|h was not within the knowledge of which requires review of the Therefore, the application for 1 deby as well as on merit. Con^quently, I.A. Nos.2 |of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <=bi^f<n41'i ^i^<nT^te^<Ri<^i< ^3ri^T3TT^T that cause of action arose on pbintiff withdrew the earlier suit the purpose of limitation whether riff is within time or not the date of NoJ63-A/2000 cannot be taken into the said suit was filed simply for the respondent No.l herein. The averments that ptaintiff No.l had ^ind decree dated 6-9-86 and 31-3-98 in civi! suits No.8-A/79 and l-A/97. ^ve are of the considered opinion that review of which has been sought, face of the record and no new <& after the exercise of clue diligence applicant is sought to be adduced, judgment passed by this Court. r4view is dismissed on the ground of 1554/06 <& 1555/06 also stand disposed the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^^ ^^ ^