This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed. The Court held that the grounds relied upon were not sufficient to demonstrate error apparent on the face of the record and they may have been valid grounds for appeal but not review.
Review petition dismissed with observations that the grounds do not satisfy Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
§EFORE TPE HIGH COURT OF CH ATTISGARH AT BILQKSPUR.
u §.C‘C‘No_._$ Y fPPLICé‘xNE : J‘Kg Kachchhap, aged about r RESPONDENT 68 years, S/o. J¢C¢.Kachchhap R/o. Near Kapil Tailors, Rawanbhata, Pnou Auctc; Jamul) Distt. gurg, (chhattisgarh) . VE RSU S ggEspoNDENTs :1) chhattisgarh State Electricity PETxTIo‘LjER / Board, Through: Secretary, nangania. Raipur, Pm. a: Distt. \y Raipur, §Chhattisgarh). m“ xq Q/WL5Q2) Executive Engineer (Civil) , 400 Q‘. J K°V. civil Construction EN, .év‘®1s. Chhatti sgarh St ate Electricity . if)vcb‘iy‘ ’.Q‘. Distt.Board; BurgBhilai—3:(Chhattisgarh)PaGé Bhilai—3:. «4‘ 3) The Industrial Court, Ghari ChOWk; Raipur, Pc0¢ €€ Distt. Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) . w E‘PPLICATIONUNDERORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: 1908 - FOR REVIEW.
N(
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
3D.B.:Hon’bleMr.JusticeAblgyManoharSapre8a Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.Minhajuddin
<br>‘
M.C.C. No.53 of 2004 U
<br><br>Applicanti J.K. Kachchhap
Respondent
‘
Versus
i
i Respondents] Chhattisgarh State Electricity
3 Petitioners Board and others.
"
Present: Shri Amrit Das, counsel for the applicant.
Agglication‘i‘or review of order dated 12.3.2004 gassed
in W.P. No.597/2003
O R D E R
(Passedon16thJuly,2012)
The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sayre,J.
Heard.
v 8 Learned counsel for the applicant no doubt made vehement attack in persuadingthisCourttoseekreviewon t‘li‘egrounds pleadedinthe petition. However, weareafraid that the groundswhich are sought to be raised in review petitionmaybegoodgroundsforappeal,iffiled,butnorfor review. What _may be good in appeal maynotbe goodfor review thoughviceversamayhold good. We, therefore,do not wish to deal with eachand every ground in detail on facts.
”7 ‘ f/ f/ SE7-‘_ g (éiMinhaE‘uddiih) JUDGE
Sd/_ fo I i (Abahy llfiiarlharisfagreli JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grounds pleaded in the review petition satisfy the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to entertain a review.
J.K. Kachchhap
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
