Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jhanak Singh vs Laxman Bajaj on 9 March, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
R.P. No.259/2021
-1-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. No.259/2021
(JHANAK SINGH VS. LAXMAN BAJAJ)
Jabalpur, Dated: 09/03/2021
Shri R.P. Khare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sanghi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the
order dated 03.02.2021 passed in MP No.2125/2020 whereby
the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner challenging
the concurrent orders in revenue proceedings passed by the
SDO and Additional Commissioner has been dismissed.
2. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that this
Court has recorded a finding about partition whereas no
partition has taken place and such a finding will effect the
petitioner's right in civil proceedings.
3. Having examined the record, it is noticed that this Court
taking note conduct of the petitioner about execution of the
sale deed and the conclusion drawn by the SDO has affirmed
the finding of partition. Needless to say that the above
observation has been made by this Court while considering the
correctness of the orders passed by the revenue authorities,
therefore, the same will not effect the petitioner's right in civil
proceedings. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record.
4. The scope of interference in the review petition is very
limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Rajender Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others
reported in 2007(15) SCC 513 considering the limited scope
R.P. No.259/2021
of review jurisdiction has held as under:-
"5 On a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that
the High Court without considering the question whether the
judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error,
entered upon the exercise of reappreciating the evidence and
on such reappreciation of evidence redetermined the
compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted
earlier.
6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well
settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a
review petition is that the order, review of which is sought,
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and
permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In
the absence of any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parsion Devi and
others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997(8) SCC
715 while holding that the error should be self evident not
requiring process of reasoning has observed as under:-
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying
the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to
be "an appeal in disguise."
The Supreme court in the matter of Meera Bhanja (Smt)
Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt) reported in (1995) 1 SCC
170 considering the limited scope of review has held that
scope of review is confined to error apparent on the face of the
record. The error must be such as would be apparent on mere
looking of the record without requiring any long drawn
process of reasoning. It is also settled position in law that
review power may not be exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits as that would be a province
of a Court of appeal and the review power should not be
R.P. No.259/2021
confused with the appellate power.
5. The present case does not fall within the four corners of
limited scope of interference in exercise of the review
jurisdiction, therefore, no merit is found in the present review
petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH
KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2021.03.10 17:47:42 +05'30'
