1 2025:CGHC:1868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 2 of 2025 1 - Narad S/o Shri Ramratan Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill.- Rampur, Tah.- Dongergarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Chandabai Jain W/o Shri Prakashchand Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sonal Jain W/o Shri Ritesh Jain Aged About 36 Years 3 - Smt. Chanchal Jain W/o Shri Nitesh Jain Aged About 36 Years All are R/o Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Collector Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.15 10:47:00 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/01/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024 an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. 2. This Review Petition has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in WP(227) No.816/2024 on 23.09.2024, whereby, the Petition was allowed consequentially and the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC and Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of the CPC were allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-applicants/petitioners have suppressed the material fact in their Petition and an application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, therefore, considering these aspects, this Review Petition may be allowed. 4. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC and application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of the CPC and further one more opportunity was granted for adducing evidence and the aforesaid applications were allowed subject to payment of certain costs. So considering the submissions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, the paramount object of the Court is to sub-serve the cause of justice and 3 not to adopt hyper-technical approach. 5. Resultantly, the Review Petition being bereft of any merit or substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka