1 2026:CGHC:25759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 672 of 2026 Shabbir Hussain (In-Person) S/o Abdul Rehman Aged About 70 Years Saakin Khaparganj Lala Lajpat Ray Nagar Madarsa Irfaniya Ke Baju Tahsil Avm Jila Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Abdul Hanif S/o Abdul Majid Aged About 75 Years Saakin Khaparganj Madarasa Irfaniya Paas Peti Kaarkhana Tehsil Avm Jila Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Aslam Husain S/o Altaf Husain Aged About 70 Years Saakin Najirabad Bus Stand Ke Paas Satna Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar Jila Satna (M.P.) Dwara Aam Mukhtiyaar Abdul Hanif S/o Abdul Majid Age 75 Years Saakin Khaparganj Madarsa Irfaniya Paas Peti Kaarkhana Tehsil Avm Jila Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shabbir Hussain (In-person) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.29 11:10:17 +0530 2 23/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs :- "माननय न्ययलय से प्रार्थ न है, कि अधिनस्थ न्ययलय  किनर्देश दिर्देय जावे कि वेहै आवे र्दे/वेर्दे  पु न किवेलन यचि" मा# आवे र्दे/वेर्दे और उसे र्देस्तावे जा जा प्रार्देश पु. 01 से ल र प्रार्देश पु. 18 ता है, उसे उल्ल ख और प्राकितावेर्दे क्रमा, 02  न्ययलय मा# हुआ बयन जा आवे र्दे/वेर्दे  रिरक्ता अधिपुत्य वे बय किरय वेसे ल  मामाल  पु र तारहै से प्रामाणि3ता रता है, उसे उल्ल ख पु न किवेलन यचि" मा# आर्दे श पुरिरता रता सेमाय किय जावे । जा न्यय किन3 य  चिलय किय जान आवेश्य र्थ। जा किन3 य दिर्देन, 04/04/2026 मा# जानब6झ र नहै किय गय। पु न किवेलन यचि" मा# रता हुय आवे र्दे/वेर्दे  वेर्दे  किनरर3 ए माहै  अन्र्देर किय जान  किनर्देश अधिनस्थ न्ययलय  दिर्देय जावे ।" 3. The petitioner-in-person would submit that before the learned trial Court a full-fledget trial was conducted in which he led his evidence supported by documents. He was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court but his evidences have not been considered by the learned trial Court while passing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2026. Against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2026, he already preferred a review petition before the learned trial Court on 20.04.2026. Since there is no consideration of the evidences of the plaintiffs in the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Court may be directed to consider the evidences of the petitioners while deciding the review petition. 4. I have heard the petitioner-in-person and perused the documents annexed with the petition and also gone through the pleadings. 3 5. From perusal of the document Annexure P-2, it transpires that a judgment and decree has been passed by learned trial Court on 04.04.2026 and from the document Annexure P-3, it further transpires that he already filed a review petition before the learned trial Court on 20.04.2026. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition for directing the learned trial Court to consider his evidences while passing the order in review application filed by him, can not be granted by this Court while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is for the Court concern to consider the case pending before it, in accordance with law on its own merits. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit