1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 405 of 2025 1 - Pardeshi Ram S/o Late Khelandas Aged About 50 Years (Now 58 Years) R/o Village Ganiyari, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 6 - Rambihari Sahu S/o Tirithram Sahu R/o Village Ganiyari, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/01/2026 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1. This review petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review and recall of the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 7497/2023, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the basis of a submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present review petition are that the petitioner had filed WP(S) No. 7497/2023 seeking appointment on the post of Kotwar of Gram Panchayat Ganiyari on the ground that he has a preferential right being the son of an Ex-Kotwar. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged the appointment of respondent No. 6 on the post of Kotwar. The writ petition was pending consideration before this Court. It is not in dispute that the writ petition was listed on 18.08.2025. On the said date, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission before the Court stating that the petitioner had crossed the age of 58 years and, therefore, at such a belated stage, the question of appointment does not arise. It was further submitted that in view of the advanced age of the petitioner and the long passage of time since filing of the writ petition, the relief claimed had lost its efficacy and the petition had become infructuous. Based on the aforesaid submission, this Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous vide order dated 18.08.2025. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid order, submits that the concession made by the counsel on 18.08.2025 was wholly unauthorized and without any instruction from the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had never instructed his counsel to give up the contest or to submit that the writ petition had become infructuous on account of his age. It is further submitted that the petitioner was keenly pursuing his claim for appointment on the post of Kotwar on the basis of preferential right and also challenging the appointment of respondent No. 6, which reliefs could not have been rendered infructuous merely on account of age. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 18.08.2025 be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original number. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 opposes the review petition. It is submitted that the order dated 18.08.2025 was passed on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner in open Court and such a statement cannot be lightly brushed aside. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record of the writ petition as well as the review petition. 6. Upon consideration, It is well settled that a concession or statement made by a counsel without specific authorization from 4 the party cannot bind the litigant, particularly when such concession results in forfeiture of substantive rights. This Court is of the considered view that the disposal of the writ petition on the basis of an alleged concession, which is now specifically asserted to be unauthorized, has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. In the interest of justice, the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in WP(S) No. 7497/2023 is hereby recalled and the said writ petition is restored to its original number. The Office is directed to list WP(S) No. 7497/2023 in the week commencing 19th of January, 2026 at the motion stage for further hearing. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE