1 2025:CGHC:12732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 55 of 2025  Satyajeet Kurre S/o Late Shri Anand Ram Kurre, Aged About 33 Years R/o Opposite Shri Gajanand Sai Mandir Budhwari, Ward No. 21, Nagar Nigam Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Kamleshwari Kurre D/o Late Pardeshi Barman Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kotra, Police Station Kotra Road, Tahsil And District Raigarh, (C.G.) C/o Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Turekela, Via/tahsil/police Station- Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18/03/2025 1) Facts of the present case are that earlier, petitioner preferred WP227 No. 151 of 2025 assailing the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 189-A/2023 dated 30.07.2024 whereby application filed U/s 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking custody of child was rejected. The learned Family Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner for custody of child on the ground that an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending consideration before the competent Court. WP227 No. 151 of 2025 was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025 on the ground that a proceeding under the Act, 1890 is pending consideration and the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.19 14:12:29 +0530 2 petitioner may raise his grievance before the said Court. 2) Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that correct facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while arguing the writ petition. He contends that no proceeding under the Act, 1890 is pending consideration before the learned Family Court or any other Court and same was already disposed of prior to 14.02.2025. He prays to review/ recall the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in WP227 No. 151 of 2025. 3) Heard. 4) The contention put forth by Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan would reveal that when writ petition was filed before this Court, no proceeding for custody of child was pending consideration before the learned Family Court or any other competent Court, therefore, neither the writ petition nor this review petition is maintainable. Further, the writ petition was dismissed on its own merits and the counsel who appeared in that case argued the matter at length. 5) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the ingredients of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC are not made out for review/ recall of the order passed in WP227 No. 151 of 2025. 6) Consequently, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya