1 CGHC010120052025 2026:CGHC:28031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 91 of 2025 1 - Mu. Deepika D/o Late Sewakram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Batgan, P. H. No. 30, R.N.M. And Tahsil- Palari, Distt.- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Shivpuram Colony Parshuram Ward - Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sumitra Wd/o Late Sewakram Verma Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Batgan, P. H. No. 30, R.N.M. And Tahsil- Palari, Distt.- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village- Rigni, Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Leeladhar Verma S/o Shri Ramnath Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Batgan, P.H. No. 30, R. N. M. And Tahsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 2 - Silochani D/o Ramnath Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Rigni, Tahsil - Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 3 - Demin D/o Ramnath Verma Aged About 44 Years W/o Rajendra Verma, R/o. Semhardih, Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Sukham Wd/o Ramnath Verma Aged About 74 Years R/o Village - Batgan, P.H.No. 30, R.N.M. And Tahsil - Palari, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Ramsharan S/o Santosh Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Mohbhattha, Police Station Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 6 - Uma D/o Santosh Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Mohbhattha, Police Station Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.08 14:50:30 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.7/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. Heard on IA No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Second Appeal No.209/2020 (Leeladhar Verma vs. Mu. Deepika & Ors.) was decided by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2024. However, as the applicants were not in regular contact with their counsel, they remained unaware of the judgment, resulting in a delay of 184 days in filing the present review petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay is bona fide and deserves to be condoned. 3. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who is the main contesting party, submits that judgment and decree dated 14.8.2024 was passed in the presence of counsel for the applicants, therefore, the applicants cannot claim to have been unaware of the pronouncement of the judgment. Despite having knowledge of the same through their counsel, they have filed the present review petition after a delay of 184 days. He further submits that the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2024 was passed on merits. Hence, if the applicants are aggrieved by the said judgment, their remedy lies in challenging it before the appropriate forum and not by seeking its review. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition be rejected. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 5. Second Appeal No.209/2020 was decided by this Court on 14.8.2024 on merits. The applicants were represented by their counsel. If any application filed by either of the parties was pending, it ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court during the course of argument. However, no submission was made to the effect that any relinquishment application filed by respondent No. 1 was pending consideration. Accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for both parties, the second appeal was decided on merits. It is the duty of the parties to keep themselves informed, through their counsel, about the status and progress of their case. If they themselves remained indifferent and oblivious to the proceedings, the delay of 184 days cannot be said to have been satisfactorily explained. No sufficient cause has been shown for condoning such delay. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025, the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the applicants, is rejected. Consequently, the review petition also stands rejected. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini