Ranjana vs Subhash
2022 Latest Caselaw 5982 MP

                                    1
                                          REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                     ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2022

                     REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022
                                                   022




     Between:-
     RANJANA W/O VIRENDRA KULMI , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL
     MAHESHWER, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                         .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI NILESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE )

     AND

     SUBHASH S/O RAKHABCHAND , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
1.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL
     MAHESHWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     RAMESHWER S/O DHANNALAL , AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
2.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEH.
     MAHESHWER (MADHYA PRADESH)
     PURSHOTTAM S/O JAGANNATH , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEH.
     MAHESHWER (MADHYA PRADESH)
     KRISHNA GOPAL S/O PEMA , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEH.
     MAHESHWER (MADHYA PRADESH)
     PRABHUDAYAL S/O NARAYAN , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL
     MAHESHWER, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
     MAGILAL S/O HAMIR , AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
6.   AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL MAHESHWER,
     DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2
                                         REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022
   BHAWANI SHANKAR S/O MANGILAL , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
7. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL
   MAHESHWER, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   RAJNATHA S/O NARAYAN , AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
8. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA, TEHSIL
   MAHESHWER, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY SHRI )
      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:

                               ORDER

The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 02/02/2022 passed in Miscellaneous Petition no 4506/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed an application under sections 131 and 132 of the Madhay Pradesh Land Revenue Code before the Tahsildar, Mandsour against the petitioner. After conducting inspection, the Tahsildar rejected the same vide order dated 12/08/2021. Thereafter, the respondents preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Khargoan and the Revisional Court set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, thereafter, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition before this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on admission, the same was rejected vide order dated 02/02/2022, therefore, this review petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector, Khargoan is arbitrary and contrary to the law and facts and circumstances of the case. The

REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022 Tahsildar had inspected the spot and prepared map in presence of both the parties and other persons, in which specifically mentioned regarding alternate way available to the respondents. On 02/02/2022, Mr. Depesh Sethi, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was not aware about entire facts of the case and circumstances, therefore, he could not quote before this Court the judgment delivered in the case of Mangilal Vs. Sarfaraz Shekh, reported in 2018(1) MPRD 72 was not available with the Mr. Dispesh Sethi and he could not sited the said jusgment before the Hon'ble Court. Some other grounds, which have been mentioned in the miscellaneous petition, could not be raised and considered therefore, the order needs to be reviewed in the interest of justice.

4. From perusal of the citations, it appears that earlier order passed by this Court was based upon the documents filed by the petitioner. It is clearly mentioned in the Panchnama that the Additional Collector has also considered the right of customary way and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, passed the impugned order. While passing the earlier order dated 02/02/2022, this Court has already considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds taken by the petitioner.

5. It is trite law that the scope of review is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Arvindakshan Nair and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692 has considered the limited scope of review and has held that:-

REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022 "5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-

"1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. The Court passing the order is entitled to review the order, if any of the grounds specified in the aforesaid provision are satisfied.

7. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined: (AIR p.1377, para 11) "11.What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow

REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022 that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."

(emphasis supplied)

8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court after referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, held thus: (Parison Devi case, SCC p.719, para 9). "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".

9. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects only to highlight the nature of review proceedings."

6. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.

REVIEW PETITION No. 322 of 2022

7. Considering the over all fact situation and legal position, it appears that the petitioner did not have any ground to stand.

8. Accordingly, present review petition is dismissed. CC as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol

Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2022.04.25 14:05:27 +05'30'