HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR paviaw Pemion No.35 of 2009 APPELLANTS 4. Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Dhirendr'a Mishra, J; 1. The appellanT—S’ra’re and ifs officers have filed This application and prayed for review of fhe order da’red 6.2.2009 passed by This Cour‘i in W.P. (s) No.497/09. Appellan’rs have also preferred an applicafion for condona’rion of delay as ’rhe review pefi’rion has been preferred wi’rh a delay of 31 days. l 2. For The reasons indicated in the application dated 08.04.2009 for condonation of delay, which is also supported by the affidavit of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, the application for condonation of delay is _ allowed and delay is condoned. S‘mfe Govt. of ChhaT‘Hsgarh, Through SecreTary‘ Deparfmen‘r of Educafion, D.K‘S. Bhawan, Disfric‘l‘ — Raipur' (C.6.) The Director Public Ins’rr'uc’rion, Chhm‘fisgarh Governmen’r Raipur; ‘Disfr‘icf- Raipur‘ (C.6.) The Disfr‘ic’r Education Officer, Dis’rricT Janjgir Champa (C.G.) The Disfricf Educa’rion Officer, Dis‘r. Bilaspur (C.6.) Vishnu Dayal Sidar‘, aged about 38 year's, S/o Shri Badku Ram Sidar‘, U.D.T., GOVT. Middle school, Aamgaon, Block - Jaijaipur‘, Disfr‘icf Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Bhogau Lal Rcrl'nakar, aged ubou’r 44 year‘s, 5/0 Shri Budhr‘am Rafnakar, U.D.T., Govf. Middle School, Sarwani, Block-Bamhnidih, Disiric‘r Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Fir‘suy Kosle, aged dboul 39 years, S/o Shri Budhr‘am Kosle, Head Mas’rer‘, GOVT. Primary School, Bhofhidih, Block Jaijaipur, DisTricT Janjgir Chompa (C.G.) Dalganjan Singh Maravi, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Na’rwer Singh, U.D.T., Gov’r. Middle School, Thafhari, Block Jaijaipur, DisT’r Janjgir Champa (6.6.) Fira’r Singh Kanwar, aged about 39 years, S/o shri Somme Singh Kanwar, U.D.T., Govt Middle School Dhorabhafa, Block Bilha, Dish‘ — Bilaspur (C.6.) O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on 15:6.2009) 3. If is seffled law fha‘r The High Cour? exercises power of review as a Courf of plenary jurisdicfion ‘ro prevem‘ miscarriage of jusfice or f0 r correcf grave and palpabie errors commi'h‘ed by if. There are no defini’rive Iimifs to ihe exercise of fhe powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporfan’r maf’rer or evidence which, offer The exerciSe of due diligence, was noT wifhin ’rhe knowiedge of The person seeking 'rhe review or could not be produced by him at ’rhe time when fhe order was made. If may be exercised where some mistake or error apparenf on fhe face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The limiTaTions as provided under SecTion 114 read wiTh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal cf ‘rhe order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.497/O9, iT is evidenT ThaT afTer hearing counsel for The pefiTioner as well as The respondenTs/STafe in deTail The wriT pefiTion was allowed, subjecT To all verificaTions regarding The facTs pleaded in The peTifion. Various circulars issued by The STaTe from Time To Time referred To in This applicaTion, were also broughT To The noTice of This CourT aT The Time of argumenT as is evidenT from reading of The order under review. In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appellanT—STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingiy, The insTcmf review pe’ri‘rion being wi‘rhou’r any substance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Roshan/— sdl’ Qw‘e“éia Miswa wdge