Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Jain vs Deceased Kalyanmal Through Lrs. ... on 20 July, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 20th OF JULY, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 490 of 2022
Between:-
ABHISHEK JAIN S/O SAGARCHANDJI JAIN ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE RISHI NAGAR,
UJJAIN AND AT PRESENT LINK ROAD,
NANAKHEDA, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.S. GARG -SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. POORVA
MAHAJAN-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DECEASED KALYANMAL THROUGH LRS.
NARESH BHANDARI 12, MUNDRA COLONY
AGAR ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARESH BHANDARI S/O KALYANMAL
BHANDARI , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 12 MUNDRA COLONY,
AGAR ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HEERALAL S/O BAGMAL , AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NANAKHEDA
BUT AT PRESENT R/O AKOLA (MAHARASHTRA)
4. SHANTIBAI W/O LATE NEMICHAND JAIN ,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEHOLD WORK VILLAGE NANAKHEDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAJENDRA S/O KUNDANMAL , AGED ABOUT 70
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS OPPOSITE
HEERA MILLS UDYOGPURI, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RAMESHCHANDRA S/O JAMNALALJI , AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
NATANI BHAVAN KSHIRSAGAR UJJAIN
PM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
7. SUGANLAL S/O POONAMCHAND , AGED ABOUT
85 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS OPPO.
HEERA MILLS UDYOGPURI, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. RANCHOD S/O NAGUJI , AGED ABOUT 70
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE HINGORIA, TEH. MAHIDPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. MADHUSUDAN SOMANI S/O SHRI M.L. SOMANI
, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS (PROPITIATOR OF BHAGWATI
AGENCY 101 CLASSIC CENTRE 575 M.G. ROAD.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASUDANI-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1,2 & 9)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a review petition for review of the order dated 13.4.2022 passed
in writ petition No.2944/2007 and also the order dated 10.07.2006 passed in
writ petition No. 2875/2006.
The petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision case No.R/1236-1/2005 and also the
order dated 23.5.2007 passed in Review case No. 1463-1/2006/01/2007 by the
Board of Revenue.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2 and 9 filed an application for
early hearing of writ petition No.2944/2007 on the ground that petition is not
maintainable as same order passed by Board of Revenue was challenged by one
of the respondents, Rajendra in writ petition No.2875/2006. The said petition
Signature Notwas dismissed
Verified by this Court by order dated 10.07.2006. It was further
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
submitted that no appeal was filed against the said order. This Court observed
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
PM
that since against the same impugned order, the writ petition has already been
dismissed by co-ordinate Bench and no appeal has been filed, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner and writ petition was dismissed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has not
taken into consideration that the petitioner had challenged two orders Annx.P/1
and P/2 before this Court i.e. the orders dated 19.5.2006 and also the order
dtd. 23.5.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition. It is further
submitted that one of the respondent No.1-Kalyanmal died during the pendency
of the petition and his LRs. were brought on record and one of the L.Rs. Smt.
Sheela had died during the pendency of the petition and her L.Rs. were not
brought on record, therefore, the order passed by this Court is a nullity. In
support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by
this court in the case of Kishun(dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Bihari(dead) by
L.Rs., 2005(4) MPLJ 1, Gurnam Singh(dead) through L.Rs. Vs.
Gurbachan Kaur(dead) through L.Rs., 2017(2) JLJ 166. It is further
submitted that the matter was not listed for final hearing of the petition and same
was listed only for consideration of I.A. for early hearing, therefore, the petition
ought not to have been dismissed in motion hearing. It is submitted that
petitioner had purchased land from one Ranchod. It is also argued that doctrine
of merger would not apply. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance
on the judgment passed in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs.
Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC (1), State of Kerala and
another Vs. Kondottyparambanmoossa and others, (2008) 8 SCC 65. On
the basis of aforesaid judgments it is submitted that in the present case doctrine
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
of merger would not apply, and therefore, the order passed by Board of
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
PM
Revenue had not merged in the order passed in the earlier writ petition. The
Board of Revenue is an independent authority.
Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner also submitted that the order has
been obtained by the respondents by committing fraud with the Court, and
therefore, the order is a nullity. In support of his submission, he has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by apex Court in the case of A.V.Papayya
Sastry and others Vs. Govt of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1,2 and 9 opposed the prayer and
submitted that review petition is not filed only against the order dated 13.4.2022
passed in writ petition No. 2944/2007 but also against the earlier order dated
10.7.2006 passed in writ petition No. 2875/2006. He submits that so far review
against the order dated 10.07.2006 passed in writ petition No. 2875/2006 is
concerned, the same is hopelessly time barred and at this stage when the
petition filed by the petitioner itself has been dismissed on the basis of said
order, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file review against the said order
which was passed in the petition filed by one of the respondents, Rajendra.
It is further submitted that the matter was listed for early hearing on the
ground that writ petition was not maintainable because against the same
impugned order, the writ petition was also dismissed. Combating the
submissions of learned counsel for petitioner that the order is a nullity, he
further submits that L.Rs. of Kalyanmal were brought on record as respondent
Nos.2 and 3, namely Naresh and Sheela who were also party in the petition, and
therefore, the order passed in the writ petition is not a nullity. He also submits
that respondent No.5 has title and possession of the land purchased through
registered sale deed and sale deed of the petitioner is null and void. The Board
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
of Revenue has rightly passed the order and no ground for review is available.
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
PM
He further submits that scope of review is very limited. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by apex Court in the
case of Yashwant Sinha and others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
2020(2) SCC 338.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any case for
review of the order. This Court has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the
ground that same order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19.5.2006 was
challenged by one of the respondents-Rajendra in writ petition No.2875/2006
which was dismissed by order dated 10.07.2006. The petitioner was also party
in the said petition and he had chosen not to file appeal or review against the
said order. So far as challenge to the order Annx.P/2 is concerned, against the
original order dated 19.05.2006 the review petition filed before the Board of
Revenue was dismissed and therefore, the original order Annx.P/1 was affirmed
in Annx.P/2.
Therefore, challenge to Annx. P/2 by which review of the petitioner was
dismissed against the order of Board of Revenue, Annx.P/1 would not make
any difference. Against the order of Board of Revenue Annx.P/1, the writ
petition was already dismissed. Since the L.R. of deceased Sheela namely
Naresh was already on record, therefore, contention of learned counsel for
petitioner that the order passed by this Court is a nullity cannot be accepted.
The judgments relied by the counsel for the applicant would not render any
assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case.
I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting any
interference in exercise of review power. It is well settled that cases are heard
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
and decided only once. To make a departure from this statutory rule, review
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
PM
application must strictly fall within the established parameters. In the light of
settled principle of law in my considered opinion, there is no merit and
substance in the review application as in a review, Court has very limited
jurisdiction circumscribed by definite limits.
Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 7/21/2022 5:40:42
PM
