•^^" ^^•" -^- .^y' ^ ^" ^ '(^) tHlcrtcTleT 3^T <nyi^iera' "E5ccfl^-ldlG> oP- ^ °/' 1. ..^msx^y ^<s?! 2. 3. 4. Ricil'eigZ fe^T.) ^l^-^ >.NO. 32. ^t^f SFP^vT ^'IPT [^ycll : *ll6*41<t ^<1»qi<*l ^PT, ^¥ 36 ^. ^. ^ra^^T ftcTT ^. *1^6*+1<« ^<fr6|ld ^3PT ^H 9 ^ *l1^+41<i STT^PT ftcTT ^. ^^4^1< ^<t»6|ld ^FT ^i 7 ^. *ll6++1<< ^O^I^ ^PT ft^TT ^. ^Tt^tR ^cfrclld ^pT ^ff 5 ^, 3PftcTTJ3ff ^.2^4 3|c|^-(<b ETRT ^rf^ft ^^iPf^ ^l\Rl<t»l vil-Htil^l "qf ^fMcft SPP^uT ^-TTf qf^ -^. •qt. ^4»6|ld ^sTT'T, Wft Pl<11'rft ^m *i1^"i< upp^ ^PT. ?PT^'?T 4»ICl1TTl, aK^IS^, f^clKI^ a6<Tld ^ f^TcTT f^dl^l^ (^.7T.) z-oll &iictc;cp<j|u|/ 3i<J1criiandiui/aicf|€)|ui tq^n<& 1. 2. ^Fn'T ^^^" ^- ftm "^. $-ll^a\icr<'ll ^f ^? 63 ^Psf ^nft TT?^T ^ITIT f^rar ^. $'r11<<a\tcr<?11 ^T ^¥ 86 2. ,y^ ^ ^ •"' / ^ ^. ^hT Pi<ii'rfl ^ter TR^TT ^ ^TRT ^(R7TyT Rdm^ d^'rftd ^ f^IcTT I^dl^l^ (^.7T.) 3. ^^^T ^7PT ftHT ^. ^-ll^d ^ovTT ^T S-n^ 48 ^. PlcllRl'ft 6|l<'1<t>T ^I^T. d^^rfld ^ I^ToTT— <t»T^<ll (^.^T.) 4. ^fNcft ^PRT ^7PT STT^ 45 g^ &--^q(^-T^^-3W5,^^^,:^-^.^F^-3o^TL-3^. CTa-u^'s ^..< f^di'd^ a&<n<?i ^ luT^TT felCll^y (^.^T.) 5. *ll6w1ci $silf^*l ^FT ftcTT ^- $<rti^a^orcii ^af, Picii^Tl C|»'<6|C11 ^S f^<?11<«y, d^^d ? ^I^TT f^dltl^ (^.7T.) 6. ^l^d 41\jl^ ftcTT ^T^uH ^TTR ^TuT^^ft, ^SV 45 ^. Plcll^ ^^TT^ ^^ ^ ^rm^. f^cii^y ae^Tlci ^ f^IT Rdl<H^ (^.''T.) 7. ^5.^. ?TRFT. EfRT— 1vT^TT£ZTST, [^cil^^K (^.^.) ^"^ ''PT?,-^?^^T3T^t^crRT, ^' ? .<5CCt^C||C;l^lul ^ u\ )sr 1'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No.32/2011 Petitioners Smt. Afroj Begum 85 Ors. Versus Respondents Habibur Rehman & Ors. ^ Petition for Review (By Circulation in Chamberl fDB : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Afi:nihotri, J. & Hon^ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.1 ORDER (Passed on 23.9.2011) 1. The matter is taken-up for consideration in the Chamber under provision of sub-rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter-VI ofthe High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 12th March, 2010 passed in First Appeal No. 14/2010. 3. All that has been stated in the review petition is that earlier, First Appeal No. 14/2010 was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter another appeal, registered as First Appeal No.62/10, was filed, in which, the petitioners have been granted -2- opportunity to move application for recalling of order dated 12.3.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 14/10. Except the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have not stated any ground in the petition. 4. The review petitioners filed an appeal, registered as First Appeal No. 14/10, being aggrieved by order dated 9.11.2009 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by which the application under Order- 7 Rule -11 (d) ofthe C.P.C. filed by respondent No.6 was allowed, holding the suit as not maintainable. When the case carae-up for hearing on 12.3.2010, statement was made, on instructions, by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants seek permission of the Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit. Learned counsel for respondent No.7/State stated no objection. On the submission so made, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the stated liberty. 5. In the review petition, it has been pleaded that the suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.l as natural guardian of appellants/plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, who were minor. Respondent No.6 moved an application under Order-7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., objecting to the maintainability ofthe suit, that the suit has not been properly constituted in accordance with mandatory provisions contained in Order 32 of the C.P.C. The application was allowed and the suit was dismissed. ..j^^T"^ y/""^ '^ I 1 1 -3- \:^y [:':!i'^::»i^VTrf^''':' 6. In the review petition, though it has been stated that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.3.2010 passed in F.A. No. 14/10, it has nowhere been pleaded as to on what ground the order passed by this Court is required to be reviewed. In the petition, it has nowhere been stated that the appeal was withdrawn on any misconception of law or fact. In fact, no pleadings whatsoever in that regard have been made. 7. From the pleadings in the review petition, it is revealed fhat the review petitioners filed another appeal, registered as F.A. No.62/10, assailing the same order which was assailed in F.A. No. 14/10, for decision on the merits of the case. On 7.9.2010, the case was directed to be listed after 3 weeks, by observing that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants desire to move an application for re-calling of order dated 12.3.2010 passed in F.A. No. 14/10. In the review petition, it has been pleaded that the review petition is being filed as vide order dated 7.9.2010, an order has been passed for re-calling of order dated 12.3.2010. 8. A pemsal of the order dated 7.9.2010 passed in F.A. No.62/10 reveals that the appeal was directed to be listed after 3 weeks, on a statement made before the Court that the appellants desire to move application for recall of order dated 12.3.2010 passed in F.A. No. 14/10. Therefore, it has been incorrectly stated in the review petition that the order has been passed to recall the order dated 12.3.2010. It has been stated that the —"-^\ ;?J -4- review is being filed in compliance of the order passed on 7.9.2010, whereas, there is no such direction given by the Court to file review petition, but, on the other hand, the case was adjourned on statement made that the appellants desire to move application for recall of order dated 12.3.2010. 9. It is well settled that review of ajudgment or an order could be sought: (a) frora the discovery of new and iinportant matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason 10. The only reason stated in the review petition is that as a direction has been issued on 7.9.2010 in F.A. No.62/10, this review petition is being filed, which is patently incorrect and not borne-out from reading of the order dated 7.9.2010. No grounds so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction have been raised or otherwise borne-out from the pleading made in the review petition. It has nowhere been stated in the review \ petition that the appeal was withdrawn on any misconception ,^=^< ^w&- -I ,.-'/ -5- of law or fact. No error apparent on the face of record has been pleaded. ll.Therefore, in the absence of any ground whatsoever urged in the petition, seeking review of the order, the review petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen