Vikram Verma vs Dr. Rakesh Verma
2021 Latest Caselaw 4214 MP

                            1

             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                        RP-430-2020
             (VIKRAM VERMA AND OTHERS VS RAKESH VERMA AND OTHERS)




Gwalior, Dated : 12.08.2021

      Shri     Prashant Sharma with Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned

counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri N.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Ravi Gupta,

counsel for the respondents.

(1) This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order

dated 22.07.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.1084/2018

whereby on one hand the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed

holding that no interference on the order passed by the trial Court is

made out but has granted an interim relief considering the fact that

vide order dated 21.06.2018, as the parties were directed to maintain

status quo, therefore, this Court has directed the parties not to create

any third party interest with respect to the suit property till the disposal

of the Civil Suit. It is argued that the petitioners are seeking review of

the directions given by the Court after rejecting the Miscellaneous

Petition.

(2) It is submitted that the aforesaid observations made by the Court

not to create any third party is creating hindrance in renewing the lease

deed of the petitioners. It is argued that the lease deed first for a

limited period and as the property being mortgaged with the Bank,

therefore, the authority including the Bank are not permitting the

petitioners to get the lease deed renewed. Counsel for the petitioners

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP-430-2020 (VIKRAM VERMA AND OTHERS VS RAKESH VERMA AND OTHERS)

has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case Kalabharti Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania

& Others reported in 2010 Vol.9 S.C.C. 437, wherein the question

with respect to dismissal/withdrawal of the proceedings/writ petition

was considered and it was observed that in such circumstances, no

interim-relief should have been granted. The aforesaid aspect be

clarified by this Court in the present review petition.

(3) Per contra, senior counsel appearing for the respondents has

opposed the contentions and states that there is no apparent error

available on the face of the record which could be pointed out by the

petitioners' counsel. As the scope of review is very limited for

correction of the error which is apparent on the face of the record. In

such circumstances, the petition is not maintainable. It is argued that

even otherwise no such direction regarding not to renew the lease in

question has been given by this Court. This Court with an intention

that there may not be any multiple litigations and considering the fact

that there was already an order of status quo by this Court vide order

dated 21.03.2018 has directed the parties not to create any third party

interest to the Civil Suit. Not even any status-quo order has been

passed by this Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by this

Court is just and proper, does not call for any interference in this

review petition. He has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP-430-2020 (VIKRAM VERMA AND OTHERS VS RAKESH VERMA AND OTHERS)

in R.P. No.615/2020 dated 07.08.2020 (Boston Hospital and Research

Institute Vs. State of M.P. & Others) wherein while considering several

Supreme Court judgments as well as considering the scope of review,

this Court has dismissed the review petition. He has prayed for

dismissal of the review petition.

(4) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(5) From the perusal of the record, it is seen that Miscellaneous

Petition which was filed was dismissed by this Court finding no

illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and simultaneously it is

directed that the parties not to create any third party interest with

respect to the suit property till the disposal of the civil suit. The relief

which has been sought by filing a present review petition that the lease

deed of the property in question is expiring soon and the authorities

are not even entertaining the application for renewal of the lease deed

because of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is seen from the

record that this Court has only directed the parties to main the status-

quo just to avoid any multiple litigations. There is no such directions

to the authorities whether to entertain the application for renewal of the

lease or not to entertain the application for renewal of lease. The

authorities are free to decide the aforesaid question in accordance with

law.

(6) As far as scope of review is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP-430-2020 (VIKRAM VERMA AND OTHERS VS RAKESH VERMA AND OTHERS)

Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic

Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 wherein it has been held as

under :

"An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to befished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests formulated above".

(7) Further, in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal

Sengupta and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :

"The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."

(8) Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and also the passed by this Court which is the order impugned,

there is no illegality in the order. Petitioner could not point out any

error apparent on the face of record to enable this Court to entertain

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP-430-2020 (VIKRAM VERMA AND OTHERS VS RAKESH VERMA AND OTHERS)

this review petition. In such circumstances, no case for review is made

out.

Review petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed .

                                                   (Vishal Mishra)
 mani                                                  Judge

SUBASRI MANI
2021.08.16
12:54:09
-07'00'