HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pet.No. 105/2011 APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Vs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Dr. Ashish Agarwal, son of Shri Magan Lal Agarwal, aged 37 years, resident of Laxmi Niketan, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Amit Khemka, son of Shri Radhe Shyam Khemka, aged 43 years, resident of Devendra Nagar, Sai Nagar, Raipur (CG) Aparna Khemka, daughter to Shri Vimal Khemka, aged 31 years, resident of Avanti Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Raipur (CG) Pranay Khemka, son of Dr. Ashok Khemka, aged 35 years, resident of F-9, ATM Chowk, Avanti Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Raipur (CG) Vinod Sharma, son of Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged 23 years, resident of Budhapara, Raipur (CG) Mst. B. Laxman (since dead), Daughter ofLaxman. Kunjilal (since dead), son of Laxman. Both through their legal representatives as under:- a. Smt. Girja Bai, widow of Late Kunjilal. b. Smt. Shobha Bai, widow of Late Manohar Singh Kunjilal. c. Santosh Singh, son of Late Kunjilal Thakur. d. Dinesh Singh, son of Late Kunjilal Thakur. e. Kum. Kiran Bai, daughter of Late Kunjilal Thakur. f. Ghanshyam Singh, son of Late Kunjilal Thakur. All residents of Near Fire Brigade Office, Beside Surana Bhawan, Baijnathpara, Raipur. Chhotu, .son of Laxman, aged about 32 years. Kashi Bai, daughter of Laxman, aged about 23 years. Janki, daughter of Laxman, aged about 24 years. All residents of Baijnathpara, Near Surana Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Harshad Rai Chatwani, S/o Late Shri Shantilal, Aged about 58 years, R/o 1/21, Anupam Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur (CG) .,.^-,\ -^/ 7' APPLICATION FOR REVIEV//MODIFICATION CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION N0. 340/2006(HARSHAD RAI CHATWANI VS.MST. B. LAXMAN 85 OTHERS). (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Adyocate for the applicants/petitioners. Respondents not notrced. ORDER (Passedon 17/10/2011) Heard on review petition. Vide order dated 9/8/2011 in W.P. No. 340/2006, petition filed on behalf of original petitioner Harshad Rai Cha.twani has beeh dismissed with the observation that in case of any grievances, petitipner may avail remedy available under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioners -submits that during course of execution, property has been sold petitioner Harshad Rai Chatwani to Vinod Sharma and others. Petitioners had also filed I.A. No. 3 in aforesaid writ petition but it was not argued therefore, petition was not amended during cpufse of hearing. Learned counsel for tHe petitioners further submits that in the light of Proviso to Order 22 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, petitioners are subsequent transferee are entitled to execute the decree of permanent injunction as prohibitory & mandatory injunction, petitioners may raise aforesaid grounds, alleged subsequent purchaser are at liberty to file appropriate petition in terms of Order 22 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with these observations, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ...\ <