Shankhlal vs Agarsay
2022 Latest Caselaw 4529 Chatt

                                                                             NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Review Petition No.109 of 2022

            Shankhlal, S/o Mehilal, Caste Gaderi, age 35 years, R/o Village
            Ksmusi, P.S. Chowki Basdei, P.S. & Tehsil Surajpur, District
            Surguja (now District Surajpur) (C.G.)
                                                                 (Defendant)
                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                             Versus

         1. Agarsay, S/o Roopsay, Caste Gaderi, age 35 years, R/o Village
            Ksmusi, P.S. Chowki Basdei, P.S. & Tehsil Surajpur, District
            Surguja (now District Surajpur) (C.G.)
                                                              (Plaintiff)

         2. Jira Bai, W/o Agarsay, D/o Bullu, aged about 35 years, Caste
            Gaderi, R/o Village Ksmusi, P.s. Chowki Basdei, P.S. & Tehsil
            Surajpur, District Surguja (now District Surajpur) (C.G.)
                                                                      (Defendant)

         3. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Surguja (now District
            Surajpur) (C.G.)
                                                              ---- Respondents

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order (In Chamber)

15/07/2022

1. The above-stated review petition is taken-up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the Rules of 2007').

2. I have gone through the review petition and the annexed documents.

3. After going through the record of the review petition and the documents annexed therewith and also the judgment under review, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the judgment dated 21-1-2019 passed by this Court in S.A. No.298/2003. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007 finding no sufficient cause for review of the judgment under review. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma