";_... —.-.-.-._.-.---. IN THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REViEW PETi'TiON N0. 3 OF 2011. to Applicant: Versus Brijkishor Maheshwari S/o Shankarlal Maheshwari, aged about 38 years, R/o Main Road Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, C.G, ...•^J I,**' ^""^-^(\.. Non-Applic.afft^^' ^ww>Smt. Usha Devi W/o Brijkishor Maheshwari, <r)<sX\ ...'• ,^P^....'*i aged about 34 years, D/o Gaurishankar <&••*°*Avn..*-t'^'^ Saboo, R/o Lohardaga Road, Gumla, Police ^" n^ L^ Station & Dist: Gumla, Jharkhand. '^f^'0' lication for Review & settinq aside the ex-parte order dated 08th July 2010 passed by this hon'ble court in T.P. (C) No. 10 of 2010. The applicant does hereby most respectfully begs to submit as under: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.3of2011 APPLICANT: Brijkishor Maheshwari rf! -Versus- NON-APPLICANT: Smt. Usha Devi Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORDER IN CHAMBER (_ojL/7/2011) 1. By this review petition, the applicant has prayed for reviewing and setting aside the order dated 8-7-2010 passed by this Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.10 of 2010 whereby Civil Suit No.44-A/09 {Brijkishore Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Usha Devi} pending before the Principal Family Court, Korba was directed to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jashpur. 2. The scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The applicant prays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny andelucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and /^another, [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. ^^^'^' 3. Perused the grounds taken by the applicant in the petition for review. 4. The order under review has been passed after issuing notice to the parties and in view of the above settled position of law, no ground for review is available to the applicant against the impugned.order. 5. The petition is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Barve Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge