Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramkali vs Mevaram Singh on 29 July, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 366 of 2022
Between:-
1. SMT. RAMKALI W/O LATE SHRI BATURI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ADARSH COLONY GOLE
KA MANDIR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. POOJA D/O LT. SHRI BATURI, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, R/O ADARSH COLONY GOLE KA
MANDIR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAHENDRA S/O LT. SHRI BATURI, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O ADARSH COLONY GOLE
KA MANDIR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. ARTI D/O LT. SHRI BATURI, AGED ABOUT 17
YEARS, (MINOR) THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN
HER MOTHER SMT. RAMKALI, R/O AADARSH
COLONY GOLE KA MANDIR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI RAM KISHOR SHARMA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MEVARAM SINGH S/O SHRI SULTAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TRUCK
VEHICLE NO. MP07-G-6089.
2. HDFC EGRO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE DM
DOWER FLAT NO.205-206 II FLOOR NEW
PALASIYA ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUDESH KUMAR- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
SHRI B K AGRAWAL- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 29-07-2022
06:05:03 PM
following:
2
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.2731/2022, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.
As per the office report, petition is barred by 879 days.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Coordinate
Bench of this Court passed the order on 17.9.2019, but it was uploaded on the
website on 3.6.2021. Thereafter, petitioner came to know about the order and
has filed this review petition on 16.3.2022. It is further submitted that Apex
Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 vide order dated 10th January,
2022 has ordered as under :-
"In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, notwithstanding the
actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.3.2022. In the
event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with
effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply. "
It is further submitted that in the light of aforesaid order of the Apex
Court, there is no delay in filing the review petition and prays for allowing the
application.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, this application is allowed and
delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
Heard on Review Petition.
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that
while deciding Misc. Appeal No.863/2014 vide order dated 17.9.2019 the
Signature Not Verified
Coordinate Bench of this Court has not considered his application
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 29-07-2022
06:05:03 PM (I.A.No.4437/2017) under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by placing reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.85/2009 (Muzaffar Ali vs.
Dasaram) decided on 12th January, 2009 wherein the Apex Court has held as
under :-
"2.In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on
a simple ground that while deciding the Second Appeal, the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh had not considered a part of the
order of the Appellate Court, by which the application filed by
the appellant before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. It is true that
the First Appellate Court, while deciding the First Appeal, had
given reasons for rejection of the said application but the
ground for such rejection was, as noted hereinabove, not
considered by the High Court.
3. That being the position, we set aside the Judgment of the
High Court and direct it to decide the appeal afresh on merits
and in accordance with law along with the application under
Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and the reasons given by the First
Appellate Court for its rejection.
4. The High Court is now requested to decide the second
appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the CPC on merits within a period of three months from the
date of supply of a copy of this order. While deciding the
same, the High Court shall also consider the reasons for
rejection of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC
given by the Appellate Court".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.P.No.290/2013 (Gurupal Singh vs.
Goverdhan Das Agarwal) decided on 27.8.2013 wherein Coordinate Bench
of this Court has held as under :-
"Since this Court did not consider the application under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC being I.A. No. 4166/12, while deciding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
second appeal no. 450/11, an error apparent on the face of the
Signing time: 29-07-2022 record has cropped up thereby rendering this review petition
SOODAN PRASAD
06:05:03 PM
worth allowing."
Looking to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and Coordinate
Bench of this Court, this review petition is allowed. Final order dated 17.9.2019
under review is recalled. M.A.No.863/2014 is restored to its original number.
The said appeal along with I.A.No.4437/2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
be listed for hearing.
With the aforesaid, this review petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be kept in the record of M.A.No.863/2014.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ms/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 29-07-2022
06:05:03 PM
