1 2026:CGHC:2108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 6 of 2026 1 - Son Singh S/o Bondku Aged About 71 Years Caste Dhruwa R/o Village Palli, Tehsil Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Fagnu Dead Through Lrs Amarnath Bhaghel S/o Fagnu Aged About 38 Years Caste Dhruwa R/o Village Palli, Tah. Jagdalpur District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramsai S/o Shri Sonsingh Aged About 54 Years Caste Dhruwa R/o Village Palli, Tehsil Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Raghunath S/o Shri Sonsingh Aged About 54 Years Caste Dhruwa R/o Village Palli, Tehsil Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 5 - Govardhan S/o Shri Sonsingh Aged About 52 Years Caste Dhruwa R/o Village Palli, Tehsil Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bholanath Joshi (Dead Through Lrs. Nil 1.1 - (A) Premnath S/o Bholanath Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Jagdalpur, Teh. District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Banmali (Died) Through Lrs Nil 2.1 - (A) Khemeshwar Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Jagdalpur, Teh. District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 2.2 - (B) Shiv Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Teh. Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 2.3 - (C) Vijay Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 43 Years R/o Kumarwand, Jagdalpur, Teh. District- Bastar Chhattisgarh BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.14 17:56:55 +0530 2 2.4 - (D) Dinesh Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 38 Years R/o Kumarwand, Jagdalpur, Village Teh. District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 2.5 - (E) Smt. Lachani Panigrahi D/o Shri Banmali Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Teh. Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 2.6 - (F) Smt. Geeta Panigrahi D/o Shri Banmali Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Jagdalpur, Teh. District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Ganesh Prasad S/o Shri Sahdev Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Teh. Jagdalpur District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Radheswari W/o Bholanath Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Teh. Jagdalpur District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Vimla Bai Wd/ Banmali Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Teh. Jagdalpur District- Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, To The Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department, Of Urban Land Administration Mahanadi Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur. P.S. Rakhi Raipur (C.G.) 7 - The Commissioner Through The Commissioner Division Chhattisgarh Bastar Jagdalpur 8 - The Collector Bastar District- Bastar (C.G.) 9 - The Sub Divisional Officer District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 For Respondents No.6 to 9 : : Mr.B.P.Sharma, Advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 3 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr.Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.B.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.6 to 9/State. 2. By way of this review petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Kindly be pleased to review and reconsider the judgment and order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 136 of 2025 (Premnath & Ors. v. Sonsingh & Ors.), in light of the grounds raised in this review petition. 2. Kindly be pleased to uphold the order dated 29/05/2023 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Revision Case No./201604950100012/28/A-23/15-16. 3. kindly be pleased to grant any other order(s)/ relief(s)/direction(s), which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 3. The impugned judgment was passed by this Court in WA No.136/2025, whereby the writ appeal filed by the review petitioners was dismissed on 24.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No.11490/2025, which was subsequently 4 withdrawn by them with liberty to approach this Court by filing a review petition. 4. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in WA No.136 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025 goes to show that the matter was argued by Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, whereas the present review petition has been filed by Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, who is a new counsel. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, has deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: "1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or 5 fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on- Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained ''No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on- Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement 6 for doing so. Filing of the ''No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate- on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the ''No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition." 6. The observation made in N. Raju Reddiar (supra) has been further relied upon by the Allahabad High Court in the recent judgment in the matter of Jai Singh vs The State of U.P. through its Principal decided on 13 April, 2023. 7. The learned Senior Advocate could not dispute the above-stated proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court and further could not give a plausible reply for non-appearance of Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate, in the present review petition. 8. In view of above, the present review petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu