IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(Art 227)No. G5H§ [201 PETITIONERS /: 1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Applicants Indrapal, aged about 26 years, Dinesh Kumar, S/o Late Indrapa!, aged about 24 years, /3. Suga‘n Bai D/0' Late Indrapal, aged about 22 years 1a Kay’mruyq D/o Late “a4W My /4. Indrapal aged about 20 years, / r5. Mulla Bai ‘Wd/o Indrapal, aged about 55 years, /6. Chhatrapal, S/o Shudhuram, aged about 60 years, AII by caste Uraon, Village J Aani, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. JankIWd/o La|Sal aged Non—Applicants about 6O years /2. RaJman S/o Late Lalsai, aged about 45 years, ‘ @ /3. Teju S/o Late Lalsai, aged about 40 years, /4. Ram Milan S/o Late Lalsai, aged about 35 years, /5. Surendra S/o Late Lalsai, aged about 37 years, R/o- Village Aamgaon, S/o Late Dharampal, aged about 38 years, t Raisingh S/o Late Dharampal, aged about 35 years, Gopal S/o Late Dharampal, aged about 33 years, All by caste Uraon, R/o Village Aani, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (c.G.) / 6. Rajendra \7/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i‘'u "Z’;, /, a M HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 6443/2010 PETITIONERS : Ramesh Kumar and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Janki and others Agpearance: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION-UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (11.11.2010) z, Heard. (2) In a suit filed by one Lalsai in the month of November, 1977 the trial court delivered the judgnent and decree on 30m August, 1999. The present petitioners preferred first appeal which was dismissed by judgnent and decree dated 4/04/2007. Instead of preferring‘a second appeal under section 100 of CPC the petitioners preferred a review petition on the ground that one of the appellant namely Indrapal died during pendency of the appeal and this fact was not brought to the notice ofthe first appellate court, therefore the judgnent and decree passed by the first appellate court deserves to be reviewed. (3) As the review petition was barred by limitation an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also preferred which has been dismissed by the court below. i (4), Admittedly, the judgment and decree was passed by the first appellate court on 4/04/2007. 0n the petitioners own showing they became aware of the judgment on 6/04/2007 itself and the lawyer informed them on the said date that their appeal has been dismissed. The celtified copy was received on 11/04/2007 and the lawyer informed them on 15/04/2007 that an appeal needs to be preferred. On returning the file by the lawyer on 26/04/2007 it was found that certified copy is not available. An application was made and the copy was delivered on 10/05/2007. The lawyer again advised them on 13/05/2007 about the requirement of filing a second appeal in the High Court. The petitioners thereafter preferred the review petition on 12/06/2007. (5) In the impugled order it has been observed by the court below that copy ofthe judgment and decree was received by them for the first time on 11/04/2007 and thereatter again on 10/05/2007. Lawyer advised them to tile second appeal in the High Court and yet a review petition was hled. (6) In the opinion of this court, the court below has not committed any error ofjurisdiction in dismissing the application for ccndonation of delay in preferring the review petition. (7) The petitioners have chosen to tile a review petition instead of tiling a second appeal in the High Court. (8) I For all the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the court below. (9) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and 1s hereby dismissed. 1/ Sw- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (I, A