Dismissed

Smt. Anuradha Sethia v. Kunti Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2012REVP/34/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a review petition filed with condonation of delay. The court rejected the application for delay condonation and barred the review on limitation, though it also decided against the merits as no error was apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; review petition dismissed.

Smt. Anuradha Sethia Vs Kunti Bai and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTOFJUDICATUREATBILASPUR} /2o12 REVIEW PETITION^No.3L/

Qivi$iun^Bengh

In fhe matter of:

F.A.No.32/1995

Appellanf:

Mohanlal

Versus

. w”:

Kashyaplal^{&o’rher‘s}

¶10

Responden‘rs:

¶11

APPLIcANT {smf Anuradha Sefhlya Widow . of LaTe Mohanlal 5e‘rhm, aged QLAKV 3X \L‘VS&.” abouT⁴⁸ year‘s,^{Chandia-pafhr‘a,} ..... ' .- I.‘ “° $m%,:Ofl--'L .’,h Tehsil Simga, Dis’rnicf^Raipur. .':'¢“.‘¢.‘°‘. ‘ ,n max.

¶12

1 Kun’r: Bcu w1dqw of Late RESPONDENTS K, Kashyaplal, aged abouT 72

¶13

year's.

¶14

Kumar, son of La’re }/Dilip Kashyaplal, aged abouT 55 year's. Kumar, son of LaTe (,EK‘Vijay Kashyaplcd, aged about 53

¶15

year‘s.

¶16

No.1 fo 3 are residen’rs of Village Nevra, Tehsil and Dis’rr‘icT^Raipur‘ (CG)

¶17

wife of La‘re (415avifa, Sanjay Kumar, aged abou’r 45 years.

gas

5 Renuka, daughfer‘ of LaTe ‘Sanjay Kumar, aged abou’r

¶22

25 years.

¶23

6.“Vivek Kumar, son of Lafe ‘^x Sanjay Kumar‘, aged abrou‘r 23 years.

¶24

7/V5aur'abh, son of Late

¶25

./ Sanjay Kumar', aged abouf 21 years. n;

¶26

.V.VV$unil Kumar, son of La're

¶27

n, Kashyaplal, aged about 5O year‘s.

¶28

9.Bhagwa’ri Devi, wife of Vasudeo, aged abouf 58 residem‘ of Nehru

¶29

years, Nagar, Bha’rapara, Tahsil Bhafapara, Dis’rric‘r^Raipur.

¶30

1. (SmT. Ramdulari Agrawal, / aged abou’r 5O years, wife of Shri Pifamberlal Agarwal.

¶31

11./ Shri Purushoffamlal, a g ed

¶32

/ abouf 32 years, son of Shri Pifambarla’L'Agarwal.

¶33

lfzwshri Nirmal Bansal, aged

¶34

{x abouf 35 years, son of Shri Vasudeoji^Agarwal. Nos.10 To 12 are residenfs of Bhafapara, Nayaganj

¶35

&U,

¶36

Ward, Tahsil Baloda^Bazar, ‘DisTr‘ic? Raipur‘.

¶37

REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 (1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^RULES 2007 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

¶38

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶40

Review Petition No. 34 of 2012

¶41

Smt. Anuradha Sethiya

¶42

Versus

¶43

Respondents Kunti Bai and others

¶44

Present: Mr. Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents.

¶45

ORAL ORDER (Passed^{on17-07-2012)}

¶46

Per Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶47

Heard on IA No.01.

¶48

The applicant has filed the above application for condonation of delay of 1429 days in filing the instant review petition arising out of order dated 27.2.2008 passed in First Appeal No.32/95.

¶49

We have gone through the cause stated in the application made for condonation of delay and find that it does not constitute either a good or 'ground sufficient for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Accordingly, the application (IA No.1) for condonation of delay^is rejected. 4. Although, having held that the review petition is barred by limitation, and hence it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, yet we have perused^{theentirerecordofthecaseandfindthatthisreview} petition^has been filed by applicant against the order dated 27th February, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge Mr. Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. Since the learned Single Judge, who had passed the order under review, has demitted the office, and therefore, this review petition is placed before this Court as per^rules.

¶50

By the impugned order, which is quite^{areasonedone,} the learned Single Judge dismissed the application made for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives of deceasedKashyaplal (respondent No.1 in the first appeal), who died during pendency l of appeal and declined to set aside the abatement. The appeal was, ‘ therefore, dismissed as having been abated.

¶51

Heard Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶52

¶53

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the grounds which are sought to be made subject matter of this review petition do not satisfy the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and therefore, no review can be filed and if filed, the same cannot be entertained. ln other words, we have not been able to notice any error much less error apparent on the face of the record of the case and hence, the review of not tenable. lt is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶54

Learned counsel for the applicant, no doubt, made vehement attack in persuading^{thisCourttoseekreviewonthe} grounds pleaded^inthe petition. However, we are afraid that the grounds which are sought to be raised in review petition may be good grounds for appeal, if filed, but not for review. What may be good in appeal may not be good for review though vice versa may hold good.^We, therefore, do not wish to deal with each and every ground in detail on facts. It is with these observations, we find no merits in this review petition and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶55

Accordingly and in the light of the forgoing discussion, the review petition^{standsdismissedasbeingbarredbylimitationaswellasonmerits.}

¶56

Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre i Judge

¶57

Sdl— G Minhajuddin Judge

¶58

Smt. Anuradha Sethia v. Kunti Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha Sethia v. Kunti Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.K.Kachchhap Vs C.S.E.B. and Ors.

Shri Birmani and Anr. Vs Gm,Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Sayyad Anwar Ali Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Baratu Singh and Another Vs Hardev Singh and Others

Smt Radha Devi Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Khemraj Sahu and Anr. Vs the Board of Revenue,C.G. and Ors.