>r REV1EW PE'n'fION No. 71 OF 2U07 Abhav Naravan Pandev S/o Shri Aditva Naravan Pandey, Aged about 46 years, R/'o Near Panchdev Temple, Namnakala, Tahsil and District - Ambikapur frf- n. (^.(J., 10 The Union of India. Throueh the Secretary. Home Departmeat, New Dellii. The State of ChJiattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Departtneiu, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) I.G. Police, Ambikapur Range, Ambikapur (C.G.) The Superiiiteiident of Police, Balrainpur, District torEEUia (C.G.) Tlic S.Ii.O. Police Station, Shaakargarli, District Surguja (C.G.) Sluvrain Prasad Kaliuri, Present S.P. Balraiupur, District Surguja (C.G.) ^ub Iiispcctor, Police Station Suarikargarh, District Surauia (C.G.) Poiice Station, Sharikargarli, District Sufgaja (C.G.) Hemaat Khan-e. Town Iiispector. Ambikapur (C.G.) Dr Ajmer Siugh, S/o Kewalising!i, aged about 50, C.E.O. Janpad Panchavat. Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.) REVIEW PETIT01N AGAINSTIHE ORDER DATED 18.09.2007 'mliotrt, J. (Passed cn 31st day of October, 2007) 1. This revievy netition is considered in the Chamber under the provisions of Rule 76(2) ofthe High Court ofChhattisgarh Rules, 2005. 2. Bv this petition. the petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 18.09.2007 passed in W.P. 504/2006, which was dictated in the open Court. The petitioner, infhis review petition seeks review on the ground that..an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation was prayed by the petitioner, into the alleeations made by him in its totality. Further, interference by the Superintendent of Police would lead to mfluencme the witnesses and vitiate fhe proeeedmes. R is next contended that fhe settlement of the /a- ifr- dispute between the petitioner and one Dheerai Jaiswal was as a result of duress and pressure. 3. I have gone Ihrough the pleadings and documents appended thereto, and it is clear that the petitioner did not raise anv objection reaardine the settlemeat of disoute between the petitioner and Dheerai Jaiswal at the time of hearing of the petition. Now. raisins the new sround will amount to rehearms of fhe case. The enauirv bv the Central Bureau of Investisation cannot be ordered on mere asking tbr the same. The oetitioner has taiied to establish a case for enquirvbvthe Central Bureau oflnvestieation. 4. The review petitioner has not pointed out anv manifest error on the record and the oetitioner has not turther broueht into the notice, anv new fact which could not be pr'oduced earlier despite diligent eflbrts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictlv confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review iurisdiction bv the Hish Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant has not produced any new eround fbr review, except the same grounds which have been considered and decided in the writ petition. 5. ADDlving the well settled princioles of law to the present case, tfaere is no ground available for review offhe order dated 18.09.2007. Under the sarb of the review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to ar@ie the entire case afi-esh which would amount to convert the review petition mio an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 6. As a result and m view ofthe foresoine, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- satehK.Agnihotri Judge Am&