v My w\myum (mm Wm w w/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITmN No. 76/2009 Dashrath 5/0 Amardas Samami, aged about 60 ym. Agruculturist, R/o village Bhainsajhar, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C. G.). PETITIONER (defendant) Vs. RESONDENTS 1 (A) Gajhadhar Prasad Gupta, s/o lam Badri {Legal heirs of the Pmsad Gupta, r/o village Kalmitar, Tah. plaintiff) Kota, Mukam Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur, Tah. 8a Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 1 (B) Smt. Urmila Bai, D/o Late Badri Prasad > Gupta and W/o Sangam Gupta, r/o Belgehna, Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur \ (C.G.). (Defendants) Durgesh, s/o Ramnamjn Gupta Umashankar, s/o Ramnaxain Gupta, Shivshankar Gupta s/o Ramnarain Gupta Laxmin Gupta, s/o Ramnarain Gupta Smt. Phoolkunwar, Wd/o Ramnarain Gupta All 2 to 6 R/o vill. Nagoi, near Tenganmunda, Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C. G.). 3 7. State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3PN: 9‘91 REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.8harma, J.) Present:—. Shri Sourabh shat-ma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent NO. 7. g; om ORDER (Passed on 28/ 10/2009) 1. Heard on petiu'on under Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedum, 1908 and LA. NO. 1, applicau'on for condonation of delay in iiling the present petition. Present Review Petition has been pxeferred after 2 days of its limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay is bona&ie. m9 «New w uA\«t,~M [49¢ E; ‘ -g” / 3. Learned counsel for the pctitioncr further submits that at the time of passing the judgment and decree dated 3/8/09 in Second Appeal No. 1246/ 99 it has not'been considemd that in absence of possession of the pany suit for permanent injunction and decree for permanent injunction was not mainfainable and according to the case of the party the plaintin' was not in possession of the property on the date of ming of the suit while dealing with the question of possession all aspects has been considered and material has been considered which were available on record. Presen Review petition has been tiled after 2 days of its limitation. Therefore, I do not find any ground for review the judgment dated 3/8/ 09 passed in Second Appeal No. 1246/99. Consequently, this review petition is liable to be dismissed and it is ereby dismissed. 4. LA. No. 1 is also dissed. mis 5. No order as to costs. Sdl— Tn sham“ Judge t h