1 2025:CGHC:25885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.143 of 2025 Ganesh Ram S/o. Late Rajaram Pradhan Aged About 56 Years Caste - Kolta, R/o. Village - Gosaeedih, Tehsil - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondent No.1) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Safed Ram Pradhan S/o. Late Rajaram Pradhan Aged About 56 Years Caste - Kolta, R/o. Village - Gosaeedih, Tehsil - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri HAPS Bhatia, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. This Review Petition has been filed under Section 114 CPC r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in W.P(227) No.583/2024 whereby, this Court has issued a direction to the Civil Judge, Class-1, Ghardhoda, District Raigarh to decide Execution Case No.02/2023 strictly in accordance with law Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.06.20 12:29:39 +0530 2 within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.2 has suppressed the fact that the present Petitioner has filed S.A No.99/2016 challenging the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.242/2014 and the said Second Appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29.08.2022 and thereafter, restoration application vide M.C.C No.163/2023 has been filed before this Court wherein, Respondent No.2 has not accepted notice and the said restoration application is pending consideration. 3. Alternatively, learned State Counsel opposes the above contention. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned carefully. 5. In the order which has been passed on 01.08.2024, direction has been given only for expeditious disposal of the execution case. The Petitioner has raised a ground herein that he has filed restoration application for which, Respondent No.2 has not made appearance. 6. In view of above, it is directed that the Petitioner may take appropriate steps in the said case by seeking a suitable direction from the Court where the case is pending to serve Respondent No.2 with the help of the executing Court unless there is a legal impediment or stay having been granted by the superior Court and as such, there is no bar to proceed with the execution case. 3 7. Consequently, the instant Review Petition is misconceived in law as no grounds for review are made out, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya