IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU Pe'i‘H’iQw v39 a~ Review Applmaj’mn No. 85? Of 2010 (Arising out of Writ Petition (L) No.3370/2007) §g§aggg Eggmh 2. Presiding Officer, Court, Jagdalpur (CG). (Respondent No.2) REVIEW APPLICATION FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER M/ DATED 22.02.2010 PASSED IN W.P.(L) NO. 3370/2007 BETWEEN SHATRUGHAN LAL SINHA VERSUS M/S R.V. THAKKAR 81; COMPNAY AND ANOTHER BY HON’BLE JUSTICE S.K.AGNIHOTRI Labour APPLICANT: M/s R. V. Thakkar 85 Company, Bhanupratappur, Through its Proprietor Smt. Lilawati Kothari W/o Liladhar (wrongly me‘ntioned as Laladhar), aged about 65 years, resident of Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG). (Respondent No. 1) V E R S U S NON—APPLICANTS: 1. Shatrughan Lal Sinha S/o Shri Ramadhar Sinha, aged about 58 years, R/o Subhaspara, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG). (Petitioner) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (5% REVIEW PETITION Nb.88 of 2010 M/s. R.V. Thakkar & Company VERSUS Shatrdghan Lal Sinha & Another APPLICANT RESPONDENTS REVIEW APPLICATOIN FOR'REVlEWlNG THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2010 PASSED lN W.P.(L) NO. 3370/2001 (BY CIRCULATION lN CHAMBER) SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. bRDER (Passed on 13““ September, 2010) The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Ruie 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Ruies, 2007’. l.A.No.1, this is an appiication for eondonetion of delay in fiiing the 34 days of the limitation period. The grounds made in the application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay in filing review petition is condoned. The review petitioner (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) seeks review of the order dated 22.02.2010 passed in W.P.(L) No. 3370/2007 on the ground firstly that none could appears on behalf of the review petitioner on the date of hearing of the writ petition. Secondly, while granting back wages the Court ought to have considered the fact that the writ petitioner Irespondent No.1 has not attempted to seek reinstatement pursuant to the orders passed by the/Court below. On perusal of the records, it is found that in the writ petition, notice was issued on 28.06.2007, the same was served on the review petitioner 25.07.2007, the matter was thereafter listed on 19.02.2008, review petition. The review petitionrhas been filed after 1 \ On r i “G 10.07.2008, 3.9.2009, 28.1.2010 and on 19.2.2010. the matter was heard finally and reserved, fof orders. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that he coiJId not appear is on account of non-response of the review petitioner (respondent No.1 in the writ petition), despite service of notice and it is made clear that the petitioner/ respondent No.1 has not taken any steps for about 2 1/2 years for coming to the Court and participating in the hearing. The other grounds that the petitioner has notattempted to get him reinstated was not in question in the writ petition. Chalienge in the petition was only to the extent of grant of back wages. This Court having heard the’submission of the petitioner, perusal of the pleadings and records and keeping in view the legal position of the case, decided the matter on merit. This review petition appears to be an attempt on the part of the review petitioner] respondent No.1 to reargue the whole matter after having deliberately chosen not to appear before the Coutt, when the writ petition was pending for about 2 1/2 years. The review petitioner does not deserve any sympathy looking into his conduct in not appearing before the Court, despite receipt of notice of this Court for about 2 1/2 years. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made bythe petitioner. lt is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Coutt under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. W um It appears that the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. lt is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See :Meera Bhanjan v.Smt. ‘Nirmal Kiifr‘tar Chbwdhary’, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and othersz, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others", and Ker/a State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm &‘Hydropower Ltd. and others5.) As a result and In view of the foregoing, the review petition isr dismissed. Sdl- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 1 AIR 1995 sc 455 2 AIR 2000 sc 1650 3 AIR 2000 sc s5 ' ‘(2005)2 scc332 5 (2005) 6 scc 651