^ ^>$^@ ^ ,^"*" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA^TISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C,No.Lf/^J20Q6 B©n APPLICANT ^ENANT) VERSUS NQ^N-APPLICANT ^Narendra Sharma, S/o.Shiv Bhagvan Sharma, Aged about 39 years, R/o.Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^/'Smt. Hansagouri, W/o.Late Shri Gunwant Rai Jani, Through Power of Attorney, Shri Mahesh Kumar, R/o. Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RECALLING OF ORDER DATED 13/5/05/ REVIEW APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/5/05 PASSED IN CIVIL REVISION N0. 30/2005 BETWEEN THE ABOVE PARTIES q XI-HC-22 STr^T^T l^w^n^T 9h^ich 'Hft^I MN*INfc:- / ^: ^ ^ -g-^ TzjTi^n, -^wrg, l^ra^:- ^ra? ; H.:&...:£-...'S^-i,(^>G 'WW?1T^^§^ •^^8?' •3TF^t^^R'^^ contehd^d matter MP^CJ 25.04.2006- . '. - : ' "^ Shri Anand Kumar Tiwarij Heard. The applicant has filed th| Order 47 rule 1 of the CPC ari<tJ 13.05.2005 passed in Civil R^ revision preferred by the appljcat Learned counsel for the 4l a^ delay of six months .with condonation of delay. It is the appiication for review is ba^ argument a judgment in the Kaur reported m 2000 01) held that whiie exercising poji ControJling Authority is to appl^ Section 23 -Dofthe Act, i have heard Shri Anan< applicant I have perused the orderj From the perusal of the order order of evictjon passed by thej teking aid of Section 23-D of attending circumstances. in viev^ appeiSant has not been able id^ reviewWithin the parameters pf| application is rejected. ^i^id^'l TV^^ ft^ •€^K iT^Ti^TSTT^ tearned counsel for the applicant. s appiication under Section 114 read with has prayed for recali of the order dated svision N6. 30/2005 and by which the it was dismissed with costs; ipplicant has fi}ed this review petition with an application M.C.P. No. 121/06 for by the counsel for theappiicant that |ed on tegaj submission as at the time of of Satish Kumar Tiwari Vs. Surindar 324 couid not be cited wherejn it is |^er in evictjon proceedings, the Rent his mind judiciousfy in accordance with orderof eviction. Kumar TJwari, leamed coynse! for the before |)assing the dated 13.05.2005 passed bythis Court. p^ssed by this Court, it is evidenfthat the ITribunal hasrnot been confirmed simply jthe Act but after consjdering the other ofthe above, 1 am ofthe opinion that the make out the case for the purpose of |Section 114 of the CPC. Accordingly the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge f