1 2025:CGHC:1657-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 133 of 2024 Smt. Sarojlata Rajak, W/o Vikas Kumar Rajak, D/o Shri Ramlal Bareth, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bhartiya Nagar Railway Line, Near National Convent School, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Vikas Kumar Rajak, S/o Late Shri Moolchand Rajak, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bajrang Colony, N.K.J. Katni, Tahsil & District Katni M.P. ...Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Mohan Pandey, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing of this review petition. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, which is duly supported by an affidavit, we are inclined to allow the same. 2 3. The application (I.A. No.01/2024) is allowed and delay in filing of this petition is, accordingly, condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. This review petition has been filed for the review of the Judgment dated 25.04.2024, passed by this Court in FA (MAT) No.55/2022. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court in Paragraph 11 has observed that since no evidence or material has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the appellant, therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner was not accepted. It is, however, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the same could not be placed because of the mistake of the counsel, who appeared in the said appeal. It is, therefore, contended that since the same was not placed in proper manner by the counsel engaged by her, therefore, the judgment impugned be reviewed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the ground as raised is apparently unknown to law as no mistake is, however, has been pointed out with regard to the apparent mistake occurred in the judgment impugned. The application, as framed is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties and considering further the reasons assigned by the petitioner, we are not inclined to allow this petition, as there is no mistake has been pointed out by the petitioner that could be said to be apparent on the 3 face of the record by this court while passing the judgment impugned, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 9. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan