Peti‘tioners $iyaram Netam Sio Bahur $ingh New? hi , ' aged‘about 54 yeara the then $ac’ Krishi Upaj Mandi Biiaspur (CG). “/At present posted and weiking as Sachiv, Krishi Upaj Mandi Bhathapara, Disirici MP. Tcppo Sic N. Toppo, aged abeut 59 years, the then Mandi $ub inspector, Krishi Upa} Mandi Biiaspu! (C.G.). At present pasted arid working as $achiv. Krishi Upaj Mandi‘Kota. District Bilaspur (CG) Mama! Dad3ena $10 Dataram Dadsena, aged about 56' years, the then Mandi Assistant Sub !nspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bilaspur (C.G.). At present meted and working as Mandi Assistant $ub Inspector. Ktishi Upaj Mandi Raigarh (06.) Versus . The State of Chhattisgarh, through: The District Magistrate, Biiaspur (6.6.) . Raipur (CG) Resgondents Shri Radhamai Sio Hismat iviai, aged ahout 70 years, Grain Merchant, ' Village Chakerbhatha Camp, Poiice Chakerbhatha, District Biiaspur (CG) PETiTlON UNDER $ECTION 482 OF THE ¢ODE OF CRIEENAg W Present: Shri MK. Bhaduri, counsei for the petitioners. Orai Grder 2. The order is chailenged on the ground that the trial court has not considered the ground for delay and thereby committed illegality. 3. l have heard Shri NLK. Bhaduri. learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of judgment of main case i.e. Criminal Case No. 231i2002 the petitioner No. 1 x HIGH COURT oF CHHATTISGARH‘AT eiLAsggg camp. No. 242:2rioa ’l‘ {58: Hon‘ble Mr. TP. Sfharma, J.) ‘ (Passed on 2?‘“‘June, 2908) This petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeai No. unregisteredl2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application on the ground of limitation and in pursuance thereof dismissed the appeai. was not posted at Bilaspur. Therefore, he has no knowledge about the proceeding of the case and when he came to the knowledge of the case he has filed an appeal against the order relating to drsposal of the property r e direction to regrster the M J C 5. On the date of hearing. counsel for the petitioner No. 1 was absent and the order impugned was passed in his absence after holding that delay has not been explained, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeai was dismissed and in pursuance thereof the appeal was also dismissed. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners is placed reiiance on the case of N Balakrishnan v M Krishnamurthv" wherein the Apex Court has held that there is no limitatlon relating to filing of the appllcatlon under section 5 of the Limitation Act 19E3 and long deiay may be conSIdered on the explanatlon thereof being satisfactory. 7. On the other hand. learned counsel for the respondent No. ‘llState is supported the order impugned. 8. According to copy of the judgment filed on behalf of the petitioners ’ in Criminal Case No. 231/2002, the judgment was delivered on 15.6.2005 and by concluding the judgment it was directed that for disposal of the property, separate M.J.C. under section 4S2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be registered. 9. After knowiedge of the‘judgment, present petitioners have filed the appeal against the order directing the registration of M.J.C. for ascertaining the entitlement of possession of the property. After taking into consideration the grounds, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the appiication for condonation of delay in filing the appeai and in pursuance thereof also dismissed the appeal. Even the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur had not decided that who is best entitlement for possession of the property. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed to register M.J.C. to decide the person who is best entitlement for possession of the property. \ \ 1998 SAR (Civit) 53.4 10. in the instant case. the petitioners are required to avai§ their remedy and agitate their ciaim in Criminai M.J.C.. but instead of avaiiing their remedy, they had preferred the appeal. 1i. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for invoking the inherent jurisdiction. After dismissal of revision, scope of interference in exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code is very limited and it may be used in case of rarest of rare. lt can not be used as Substitute for second revision. 12. l do not find any substance in thefpetition. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stae of admission. Sd/- T.p. SHARMA ’\~ Judge x .%§ee Bl- g