This review petition filed under WP No. 3807/2004 was dismissed as it was barred by 113 days' delay. The bench held that the reasons for delay were insufficient and the petition was misconceived as a disguised appeal.
Review petition dismissed due to uncondonable delay of 113 days as it was misconceived.
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.
INTHE HQN»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
^,^1^
REVIEWPETITIONNO. 8 ?1-/2014
Jo S ^SSSjjSV S
Arisins out ofWrit Petition No. 3807/2004
P^titioner;-
^•^
-w^
^
^
^-
^KailashNath SharmaSon of Late Dulichand Sharma, Aged about 42 years (At 52 present years), Occupation Busniess, Resident of near Jindal Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)
VERSUS
tes .esposadents
The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Departiiient of Revenue; DKS Bhawan, Raipur Now Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
The Board of Revenue Through Its Superintendent Board of Revenue Bench. at
Bilaspur (C.G.)
.<'
®
li|f
^
x
The District Collector, District Raigarh
(Chhattisgarh)
R. C. Netam Son of I. R. Netain, Occupation Ser^ice Mines Inspector, Department of Mines and Mineral, Raigarh (C.G.)
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 03/03/2014 PASSED INW.P. N0. 3807/2004 IN " KAILASH NATH SHARMA
VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERSM
^ ... ^
^
RMEWPEjmON N0522014
Petitioner
Kaitash Nath Sharma
Versus
Respondents
State of Chhaftisgsrh and otfiers
PETmON FOR
By Circulstion in Chamber
Singlt ^nehLHon'ble Shri Manlndra Mohan $hri¥§stavs,J.
ORDER
(Passedon08/09/2014l
Hesrd.
Thls review petition arises out of order dated 03/03/2014 passed in W.P. No. 3807.^004. Review petition Is barred by delay of 113 days as recorded by office. Prayer for condonation of delay hss been made on tfie ground that delay v%s caused because he was advlsed, of late, that ttiere Is s remedy of filing reylew pelition. The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay in fi!ing review petitlon are not suffident to condone such a long delay.
Even olherwise on merlts; no case of revi^f Is made out. The entire revlew petitlon Is nothing but an sppea! is dlsguise. It has nowhere been pointed out as to on what ground, review has been sought. The review petition Is
completely mlsconcelved in law and is accordingiy, dismlssed.
Sd/-
ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition barred by 113 days delay should be condoned.
Whether a review petition dismissed as a misdisguised appeal deserves condonation of delay.
Kailash Nath Sharma
State of Chhattisgarh
Board of Revenue
District Collector
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
