^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAfiH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT RESPONDENTS REVIEW PETITION No. 43 of 2008 Lalmani Raversi, S/o Mohanlal Kol aged about 30 years, Occupation Panchayat Secretary, Presently working in Gram Panchayat Barhori, Resident of village Barhori Tahsil Bharatpur, Police Station Janakpur, Disrict Koriya (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 1. Sudha Shankar Tripatfai, aged about 35 years, S/o Ambika Prasad Tripafhi, R/o Village Barhori, Tahsil Bharatpur, Police Station Janakpur, District Koriya (CG). 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry ofPanchayat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 3. The Collector, Koriya. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bharatpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh). 5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Barhori Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya (CG). 6. The Sub Divisional OfEcer, Manendragarh, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). APPLICATION FOR REVffiW OF THE ORDER DATED 03.07.08 PASSED IN W.P (S) N0. 5215 OF 2007. fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Assnihotri. J.) Present : Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advoeate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 13 day of October, 2008) I.A. No. 01, application for condonation ofdelay, is ordered as prayed for. 1. By this petition, the applicant seeks review ofthe order dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) 5215/07 (Sudha Shankar Tripathi Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others). f' f'i S €.,. /w i?~8::'n ^ '^t-LSi,. ^ '^* 'h ^1.1*°'• vi. <?k "S Learaed counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no error in the order dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5215/07 (supra). He further submits that the applicant be permitted to argue the matter afresh. The same cannot be permitted in review petition. The applicant has not raised any other pennissible grounds under the provisions ofOrder 47 Rule 1 oftheCode ofCivil Procedure i.e. discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reason. Principle of law in regard to review of the order is well settled by several judicial pronouncements ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases ofSmt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kvmari Choudhar^, Lity Thomas, etc. vs. Union oflndia and other/, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State ofOrissa and other/, Gavemment ofT.N. andothers vs. M. Ananchu Asari mid others and Kerla Stale Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropo-wer Ltd ccnd other/. Appl^ng the well settled prmciples of law to the present case, Ifaere is no ground available for review of the order dated 03.07.2008. Under the garb ofthe review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire 'AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR2000SC1650 3AIR2000SC85 4 2005 (2) SCC 332 5 2005 (6) SCC 651 6 •««.£"; Sahu case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge