1 2025:CGHC:8806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 166 of 2025 1. Animesh Gupta S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Gupta Aged About 49 Years R/o Present House No. 407/b Street-26 Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg ( C.G. ). 2. Smt. Lata Gupta D/o Late Jagdish Aged About 73 Years R/o Present House No. 407/b Street-26 Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg ( C.G. ). 3. Smt. Archana Gupta D/o Jagdish Prasad Gupata Aged About 55 Years R/o 149-A, Vardmaan Nagar, Central Warehouse, Bhandewadi, Bagadganj, Nagarpur ( Maharashtra ) 4. Smt. Anubha Gupta S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Pwd Office Achalpur Road Praratwada,district- Amrawati ( Maharashtra ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vinod Gupta S/o Late Banwari Lal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Golbazar, Sindhi Dharamshala, Bilaspur Tehsil And District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). 2. Pramod Gupta S/o Late Banwari Lal Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o Agresen Chawk, Cafino Restaurant I.D.B.I. Bank, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). 3. Amit Gupta S/o Pramod Gupta Aged About 37 Years R/o Agresen Chawk, Cafino Restaurant I.D.B.I. Bank, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate, Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.20 14:10:51 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 20/02/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Sections 63 and 65 of Indian Evidence, Act, 1872 was moved for leading secondary evidence and it was rejected by the learned Court below vide order dated 17.10.2024. He contends that petitioner moved an application under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC for review of that order before the Court below and same was dismissed on two counts, which are: (i) review application was not moved within period of 30 days and no separate application for condonation of delay was moved and (ii) a separate Misc. Judicial Case (MJC) was required to be registered. He prays that as the application has not been rejected on merits, petitioner may be permitted to prefer a fresh review application before the Court below in accordance with law. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 3) Heard. 4) Taking into consideration the fair submission made by Mr. Jha, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer fresh application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC strictly in accordance with law. 5) If such application is moved, it is expected that learned Court below will decide it expeditiously in accordance with law. 6) With the aforesaid direction(s), instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya