M/S Harjasmal Dasumal vs Singhai Todarmal Kanhaiyalal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9391 MP

                                                  RP No.318 of 2022
                                  1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT JABALPUR
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                      ON THE 12th OF JULY, 2022

                 REVIEW PETITION No. 318 of 2022

     Between:-
     M/S HARJASMAL DASUMAL
     THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
     DASUMAL MAKHEEJA
     S/O LATE SHRI HARJASMAL MAKHEEJA
     AGED 68 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS
     R/O GHANTAGHAR BEHIND RAMLEELA
     MAIDAM MAHATMA GANDHI WARD
     KATNI DISTRICT KATNI M.P.
                                                       .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)

     AND

1. SINGHAI TODARMAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN
   PARMARTHIK TRUST KATNI
   THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES, KATNI
   DISTRICT KATNI M.P.

2. S. SINGHAI SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
   S/O SHRI DHANYAKUMAR JAIN,
   AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
   PRESIDENT SINGHAI TODARMAL
   KANHAIYALAL JAIN PARMARTHIK
   TRUST KATNI R/O KATNI DISTRICT -
   KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

     RAJKUMAR JAIN
3.
     S/O SHRI SHIKHARCHAND JAIN
     R/O SAWARKAR WARD
     KATNI DISTRICT- KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN
   S/O SHRI JAGMOHAN JAIN,
   AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
   R/O JALPADEVI WARD
                                                   RP No.318 of 2022
                                  2




     KATNI DISTRICT - KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

     PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN
5.
     S/O SHRI TODARMAL JAIN,
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     R/O SHIVDHAM GALI KATNI
     DISTRICT - KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.
     S SINGHAI ANIL KUMAR JAIN
     S/O ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     R/O RAGHUNATH GANJ
     KATNI DISTRICT - KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
     PREMCHAND @ PREMI
7.
     S/O SHRI GYANCHAND JAIN
     R/O RAGHUNATHGANJ
     KATNI DISTRICT - KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

     SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
8.
     S/O LATE SHRI SETH SUNDARLAL JAIN,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/O OPPOSITE TO NAGAR NIGAM
     KATNI DISTRICT - KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:


                               ORDER

By this petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2022 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.1906 of 2021.

RP No.318 of 2022

2. This petition for review has been filed inter alia on the grounds that the appeal was filed on the ground that the findings rendered by the courts below are perverse, the Courts have completely ignored the statement of Sudhir Jain in paragraphs 10,12,13 and 14 of his statement, hence findings of the court below are perverse. In the impugned judgment, provision of Section 9 of the Public Trust Act has not been taken into account. It is further contended that none of the substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant were dealt with in the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that proposed substantial questions go to the root of the matter, hence, impugned judgment may be recalled.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

4. This Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2022, has taken into account the fact that the ownership of the Trust over the suit property was not disputed and the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant is also not in dispute. This Court also considered that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was received. On scrutiny of the judgments passed by the Courts below and upon perusal of the record, this Court found no perversity in the judgment passed by the Court below and no substantial question of law arises.

5. The scope of review, is very limited. That apart, the scope of review has been dealt with in catena of decisions. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers RP No.318 of 2022

from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the application for review cannot sit on appeal over the order passed by it. An order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. It is apparently clear that all the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellant in detail are mentioned in the application with the intention to obtain the fresh findings of this Court.

6. In the case of Asharfi Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 86 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that it is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.

For review there must be error apparent on the face of record, re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to exercise the appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible, mere fact that two views on the same subject are possible is not a ground for review of the earlier judgment passed by a bench of the same strength, where the remedy of appeal is available the power of review should be exercised by the Court with greater circumspection. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the RP No.318 of 2022

Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits. [See : Meena Bhanja v. Nirmal, (1995) 1 SCC 170; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani 2006 (3) MPLJ (SC) 226; Union of India v. Sandur (2013) 8 SCC 337; State of Rajasthan v. Surendra, 2014 MPLJ OnLine (SC) 1; Sivakami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 4 SCC 587; J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]

7. In view of the preceding analysis, there is no apparent error on the face of the record. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground for review or modification of the judgment dated 26.02.2022 is made out. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed.

                                                     (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
        ks                                                JUDGE
Digitally signed by
KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN
SHUKLA
Date: 2022.07.14 02:27:34 -07'00'