K‘é IHE HQMTBLE k-EIGH €0URT 0E, CHHAHISGARH AI F 2mg $ingia %ané¢h ETITIQNER yNagendra Singh San af Late gm Shambhu Singh, aged abaut 59 years, workiné as a Headmaster, ‘ Gavt. Primary SchoQE Baigapara! ianakpur, District Koriya (C.Q>}* ¥ERSLJS ’ State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh: / The Secretary, Department af Tribai wafare, D.K.S. ‘Bhawan, Raipur, DiStrict Raipur $LG.}. . The Assistaat Sammi5$ion£n 'Tribai Devaiagment, Eaikunthpur, Distrigt Koriya (Casi). r ’ The Canectar, Kariya {CG}. , The 3km}; Edutatiim Qfficer, Bharatpur! District Kariya (chm. Shiv Kumar Sharma $Gn 9f Late Garud Ram Shawna, aged about 53 year5, Warking an the wast 9f a Headmaster, Resident af \ Janakpua} Biack District KQriya (CG; Bharatgar, The PrincipaL GWL Higher Sacandary $€hooL BhaFatgm', District Koriya (CaGiL REVIEW PE'EIEIGN BNEER EHAETER-iéE GE TEE EPEEGH COLERT QF CHHATHSGARH RULES, 2GQ? * ... 7m . ERASPUR C.G. O {\w € haw vx ¢ 0% 6x ,ESPQNDENJS : 1, / 4 f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Review Petition No. 112 of 2010 APPLICANT Nagendra Singh VERSUS ‘\ RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh and others 0 R D E R in Chamber e (27.1 0.201 0) The applicant has filed this appiication and prayed for review of the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 930/2009. Order sought to be reviewed perused. it is settled law that the High Court exercises power of review as a Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable 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 or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge 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 V 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, 1908. 3. ln the present case no such illegality or palpable error has been pointed out in the review petition. Moreover, according to thé‘fg petitioner himself he came to know about the passing of the order on 12.1.2010 but still he waited till 4.9.2010 when he was asked to hand over the charge. Thus there is inordinate delay in. filing the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition being without substance and also being barred by limitation is liable o be dismissed. lt is dismissed as such. Pritinker Diwaker Judge /// Sci/— > ‘ l \