Manharan Diwakar vs Luli Bai (Since Deceased) Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6288 Chatt

                              1

                                                          NAFR

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                Review Petition No 130 of 2022

1. Manharan Diwakar, s/o. Parsuram Diwakar, aged about 38
   years, r/o. Ward No.07, Jaistambh Chowk, Rajadhar,
   Bhatapara, Dist. Baloda Bazar (CG).

2. Sammat, w/o. Amrit Das Ghritlahre, aged 45 yerars, r/o. Maro
   Kapa, Navagarh, Distt. Bemetara (CG).

3. Kalavati w/o. Umendra Barcha, aged 43 years, r/o. Village
   Chilgula, Dist. Mungeli (CG).

4. Reklha, w/o,. Radheshyam, r/o. WardNo.07, Jaistambh Chowk,
   Rajdhar, Bhatapara, Dist. Baloda Bazar (CG).

5. Parvatri, w/o. Kauoshal Koshle, aged 40 years, r/o.village
   Kura, Navagarh, Dist. Bemetara (CG).

                                                   ---- Petitioners

                           Versus

1. Luli Bai (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 14-07-
   2021 And 22-07-2021.

1. 1(a) Dilesar Prasad S/o Shri Mukut Ram, Aged About 47 Years
   R/o Village - Khapri, Post Chinbhog, Tahsil Mungeli, District
   Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Son Bai (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 14-
   07-2021               And                22-07-2021.
   2.1 - Babulal Tandan, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Tandan, Aged
   About 33 Years R/o Village Khapri, Post Ofce Chhinbhog,
   Police Station Pathari, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.,     District    :    Bilaspur,   Chhattisgarh
   2.2 - Biharilal, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Tandan Aged About 26
   Years R/o Village Khapri, Post Ofce Chhinbhog, Police Station
   Pathari, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
   District         :        Bilaspur,         Chhattisgarh
   2.3 - Banshilal Tandan, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Tandan, Aged
   About 22 Years R/o Village Khapri, Post Ofce Chhinbhog,
   Police Station Pathari, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. State Of M.P. (Now State Of Chhattisgarh) Through The
   Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh

                                                 ---- Respondents

(Application for review of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-5-2022 passed in Second Appeal No.417 of 2022.

(By circulation in chamber)

S.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

14-10-2022.

IA No.02

1. This is an application for condondation of delay of 35 days in filing the review petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application (IA No.2), the same is allowed and the delay of 35 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

3. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

4. The review petitioners seek review of the order dated 12-5- 2022 passed in SA No.417 of 2022 merely on the ground that the present petitioner are sole owners of the disputed land and respondents No. 1 and 2 both have failed to prove that they are legal heirs of the deceased parties in the civil suit as per Will. It has also been contended that the the petitioners are legal heirs of the original plaintiff Smnt. Son Bai, which was neither disclosed by respondents No. 1 and 2 before this court nor before the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-1, Mungeli in Civil SuitNo.103-A/1997 in the proceeding for determination of legal representatives.

5. From the records, it is quite vivid that this court has sent the matter to the trial court for conducting enquiry to ascertain who are legal heirs of deceased and in pursuance of the order

passed by this court, the trial court has conducted the enquiry and submitted its report.

6. From bare perusal of the enquiry report it is reflected that the present petitioners have not participated in the proceeding, therefore, this cannot be a ground to review of the impugned judgment and decree passed by this court.

7. On going through the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-5-2022 passed in SA No. 417 of 2004, it is manifest that after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has delivered the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed herein.

8. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioners showing any manifest error on the record. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.

10. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioners should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and

others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}.

11. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju