BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR LCHHATTISGARH ) Review Petition NowCJf ”/2009 §§§m¥§§w @5W% A.K. Sonwane, S/o D.T. Sonwane, aged abaut 44 years, R/o Q.No. 117, Poonam Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh $1M Through the Secretary Agriculture Ag“ APPLICANT RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Director, Jal Grahan Khetra Vikas (Hariyah‘) Karyakram, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan (Jal Grahan Prakosht) Civil Line Ralpur (C.G.) 3) Deputy Director, Prakratik Sansadhan, Prabandhan Sambhag, Agriculture and Co-operative Department, Agriculture Mantralaya Bharat Sarkar Shastri Bhawan New Delhi. 4) R.K. Sharma S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sharma, aged about 49 years, occupation Service, Posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ”\,/ PETITIONER APPLICATION FOR REVIEW/MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER 06.07.2009 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF HIQH COURT OF CHkmJTiSGiEnRH AT MLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritihker Diwaker) Review Petitian Non 64 of 2009 0 R D E R (In Chambar) (09.10.2009) The appHcant has filed this appiicatian and prayed for review of me order dated 06072009 passed by this Court in WP. (3) No. 3166/2009. 2. ii is settled law that the High Court exercises power oi review as a Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and paipabie error committed by it. There is no definitive limit to the exercise of the powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter orfevidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowiedge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. However, the power is to be exercised with the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i908. 3. in the present case no such iliegality or paipable error has been pointed out in the review petition. Accordingly, it ie being without substance, dismissed, The appiicant is however at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under law. sdl‘ yrtt'l“"er Judge "waker (it APPLICANT AK. Sonwane. VERSUS RESPONDENT$ State of Chhattisgarh and others.