Madhya Pradesh High Court
Piyush Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 265 of 2022
Between:-
PIYUSH JAIN S/O SHRI SUDARSHAN JAIN ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ENGINEER R/O 90 VALLABH NAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF
1. SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MADHYA PRADESH SASAN PRAMUKH
SACHIV NAGRIYA VIKAS AVAM AWAS
2. VIBHAG MANTRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
AYUKT INDORE SAMBHAG M.G. ROAD
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR MOTI TABELA INDORE
4.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN DWARA
MUKHAY KARYAPALAN ADHIKARI 7,
5.
RACECOURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ADYAKSH INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN
6. 7 RACE COURSE ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DAINIK VISHWABRAHMAN DWARA
7. SAMPADAK PRESS COMPLEX A.B. ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
FREE PRESS GENERAL DWARA
SAMPADAK THE INDIA NATIONAL PRESS
8.
FREE PRESS HOUSE, 3/54 PRESS COMPLEX,
A.B. ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
INDORE SAMACHAR DWARA SAMPADAK
9.
PRESS COMPLEX (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. DAINIK NAVBHARAT DWARA SAMPADAK
- : 2 :-
6/54 FIROZ GANDHI PRESS COMPLEX A.B.
ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
LOKSWAMI DAINIK SAMACHAR PATRA
DWARA SAMPADAK 23-A, FIROZ GANDHI
11.
FRESS COMPLEX A.B. ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SANDHYA DAINIK AGNIVAN DWARA
12. SAMPADAK A.B. ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAPTAHK SPOTNIK DWARA SAMPADAK B-
13. 9 PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
YUGBHARAT PRESS DWARA SAMPADAK
14. CHOUDHARY COMPLEX DAKCHYA A.B.
ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAPTAHIK AAJ KI JANTA DWARA
15. SAMPADAK PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SAPTAHIK SUCHAK PRESS DWARA
16. SAMPADAK 12, PRESS COMPLEX, A.B.
ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAPTAHIK APNI DUNIYA DWARA
17. SAMPADAK A.B. ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
U.N.I DWARA SAMPADAK PRESS
18. COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
MALWA SAMACHAR PRESS DWARA
SAMPADAK INDORE SAMACHAR KE
19.
SAMNE, PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SAPTAHIK MALWA ANCHAL DWARA
20. SAMPADAK PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DAINIK NAVEEN DWARA SAMPADAK
21. PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAPTAHIK BINDAS DWARA SAMPADAK
22. SWADESH BHAWAN, 25 A.B. ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRABHAT KIRAN PUBLICATION DWARA
23. SAMPADAK SWADESH BHAWAN, 25 A.B.
ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DAINIK RAJIV TIMES DWARA SAMPADAK
24. PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SANIVAR DARPAN INDORE PUBLISHING
AND GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED DWARA
25.
SAMPADAK PRESS COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHODA SANSAR DWARA SAMPADAK 16-17
26. A.B. ROAD, SAFAYAR TWINS SCHEME NO.
54 VIJAY NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 3 :-
NATIONAL HERALD DWARA SAMPADAK 1-
27. A A.B. ROAD PRESS COMPLEX INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DAINIK SWADESH DWARA SAMPADAK
28. SWADESH BHAWAN, A.B ROAD PRESS
COMPLEX (MADHYA PRADESH)
DAINIK DOPHAR DWARA SAMPADAK
29. CHIMANBAGH MAIN ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SAMPTAHIK BAHKATI KALAM DWARA
30. SAMPADAK PRESS COMPLEX A.B. ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
ORDER
(Dr.) Manohar Lal Dalal, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
******
Heard on the question of admission
The present review petition seeking review of order dated
31.01.2022 passed in W.P. No.11616/2020 (PIL) whereby writ petition
has been dismissed, relevant para is reproduced below:-
14. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that
despite directions/orders/writs and directions given by this court in
writ petitions Indore Devpolment Authority has not taken any
action and sleeping over the matter which is nothing but the
continuation of illegal possession by the newspaper agencies over
the plots without there being any deed. This court vide order dated
19.02.2008 passed in writ petition no.4806/2007 has directed the
Indore Development Authority as well as the State Government to
take final order. Now Indore Devpolment Authority has taken a
decision and divided 25 allotments into five categories and explain
the action taken in respect of the allotment falling in these five
categories. In case of where the allotment has been cancelled the
newspaper agencies concerned respondent has filed fresh petitions
challenging the action. If the petitioner is having any grievance
against the said decision he may intervene in those writ petitions.
The State Government has taken a cabinet decision in respect of
12 newspaper agencies therefore, now no more issue is pending
before the state government as well as the Indore Development
Authority . The parties aggrieved by the decision have already
preferred writ petitions before this court which are liable to be
examined by writ court (single bench). So far the present petition
[PIL] is concerned compliance has been done by the State
Government as well as by the Indore Development Authority. If
the petitioner has any grievance against the decision taken by IDA
he may intervene in the pending writ petitions. In this petition, the
petitioner trying to assail the validity of the order/ cabinet decision
by way of reply to the application for disposal which is not
permissible. The purpose of filing this writ petition has been
- : 4 :-
served now as the Indore Development Authority, as well as the
State Government both, have taken a final decision which is the
subject matter of various Writ Petitions filed by the respondent nos
10 to 30 to be decided by the single bench of this High Court as
roster. Hence, this PIL has rendered infructuous.
The present review petition is filed on the ground that while
disposing of Pubic Interest Litigation, this Court did not examine the
I.A. No.9588/2021 dated 01.10.2021 filed seeking quashment of the
order dated 14.07.2021, secondly; the order passed by the Supreme
Court in case of K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in
2006 (3) SCC 581 is law declared by Supreme Court binding all the
courts, thirdly, the PIL was liable to be decided in Public Interest on
merit in light of judgment passed in case of K.K. Bhalla (supra) and
order dated 14.07.2021 ought to have been set aside.
This Court while disposing of Public Interest Litigation has
observed that validity of the order dated 14.07.2021 is under challenge
in various writ petitions filed by the private respondents in PIL
therefore, any observation made by the Division Bench shall affect
the decision to be passed in the writ petitions. The present petitioner
filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking compliance of direction given
in the case of K.K. Bhalla (supra) and thereafter Division Bench of
this Court for examination of the allotment made to the Newspaper
owners. The Indore Development Authority, as well as State
Government, have considered and regularized the allotment with
certain conditions and modifications vide order dated 14.07.2021,
therefore, substantial compliance has been made . This Court has also
observed that the writ petitioner did not challenge the validity of the
order dated 14.07.2021 by amending the writ petition but has only
brought on record by way of application. The petitioner has also been
given the liberty to intervene in the writ petitions.
Petitioner has filed a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation, the role of the petitioner is only to bring the issue touching
the public interest before this Court. He cannot assume the status of
adversary litigant. If this Court has examined the issue and disposed of
- : 5 :-
the PIL then the writ petitioner has no right to file a review petition as
adversary litigant. The legality of the allotment of land is between
Government and the allottee. The Government has considered the
matter and regularized the allotments subject to certain conditions.
The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank
(Smt) and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20
has held as under :-
13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114
CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate
the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely
states that it may make such order thereon as it thinks fitÃ
¢ÂÂ. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for
the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a
rehearing on account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the records or for any other sufficient reasonâÂÂ.
The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable
to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is
manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not
possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute
because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case
or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or
cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a
favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation
to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that 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. Where the order in
question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and
efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to
review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court
in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. held as
follows: here 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 â error apparentâ . A review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. â¦
where without any elaborate argument one could point to the
error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares
one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions
entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face
of the record would be made out.âÂÂ
20. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the
background facts of the present case, the position is clear that
the High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the
prayer for review. First, the crucial question which according
to the High Court was necessary to be adjudicated was the
question whether Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 (sic 1 of 1986)
was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This
question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and was irrelevant
so far as Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally,
the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No.
- : 6 :-
201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19-8-1982 is
mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, and at the end of the plaint it
has been noted that the right to institute the suit for specific
performance was reserved. That being so, the High Court has
erroneously held about infraction of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This
was not a case where Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has any application.
In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that rehea ring of
a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present
case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the
petitioner infact under the guise of review is challenging the order
passed by this Court, which is under review. Similarly the Apex Court
in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and
Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 in paragraphs 21, 22 and 35 has
held as under :-
21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is
sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence,
such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a
character that if the same had been produced, it might have
altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or
important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review
ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has
also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not
within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence, the same could not be produced before the court
earlier.
22. The term â mistake or error apparentâ by its very
connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require detailed examination,
scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires
long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it
differently 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 court/tribunal concerned
cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted
judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under
Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a
civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the
grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
- : 7 :-
(iii) The expression â any other sufficient reasonâÂÂ
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light
of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be
discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as
an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of
power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the
guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f)
on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or
larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal
must confine its adjudication with reference to material which
was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of
some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of
for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error
apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is
not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has
also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the
same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.Ã
¢ÂÂ
In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error
that is prima-facie visible and does not require any detailed
examination. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to
point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary,
this Court has decided the case on merits.
The Apex Court again examined the scope of interference and
limitation of review in the case of Inderchand Jain (dead) Through
LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663
in paragraphs 7, 22, 24, 29, 31 and 33 has held as under :-
7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the
Code) provides for a substantive power of review by a civil
court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words
"subject as aforesaid'' occurring in Section 114 of the Code
mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
prescribed as appearing in Section 113 thereof and for the said
purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 47 of
the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the
Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power
of the court but such limitations have been provided for in
Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under:
- : 8 :-
17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision
is traceable in Section 114 CPC. The grounds on which review
can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which
reads as under:
1. Application for review of judgment.âÂÂ
(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 of the court which passed the decree or
made the order.âÂÂ
22. Whereas the appellant-defendant filed a review application
confined to the question that he was entitled to the restitution
of the property and mesne profit in respect whereof the learned
Single Judge of the High Court did not pass any specific order,
the application for review filed by the respondent was on the
merit of the judgment. The relevant grounds of review which
have been placed before us relate to:
(i) Unconditional withdrawal of some amount by one of the
creditors of the defendant as also the defendant himself.
(ii) The defendant's application before the executing court that
he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed on
receipt of amount in cash and the said admission allegedly was
not brought to the notice of the court.
(iii) While holding that there was no agreement to reduce the
sale consideration, the High Court had ignored the fact that it
was an admitted case of the parties, as stipulated in the
contract, that the defendants would get the premises vacated
from the tenants within three months.
(iv) The appellant had prayed for an alternative relief viz. that
he was ready to get the decree for specific performance of
contract by paying Rs 1,15,000. The court did not consider the
evidence of DWs 1 to 6 in their proper perspective.
(v) The court did not consider that the property could not be
restored back to the appellant-defendant and as such the court
should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction.
24. An appeal is a continuation of the suit. Any decision taken
by the appellate court would relate back, unless a contrary
intention is shown, to the date of institution of the suit. There
cannot be any doubt that the appellate court while exercising
its appellate jurisdiction would be entitled to take into
consideration the subsequent events for the purpose of
moulding the relief as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 7 read
with Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
same shall, however, not mean that the court would proceed to
do so in a review application despite holding that the plaintiff
was not entitled to grant of a decree for specific performance
of contract.
- : 9 :-
29. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code stipulates that filing of an
appeal would not amount to automatic stay of the execution of
the decree. The law acknowledges that during pendency of the
appeal it is possible for the decree-holder to get the decree
executed. The execution of the decree during pendency of the
appeal would, thus, be subject to the restitution of the property
in the event the appeal is allowed and the decree is set aside.
The court only at the time of passing a judgment and decree
reversing that of the appellate court should take into
consideration the subsequent events, but, by no stretch of
imagination, can refuse to do so despite arriving at the
findings that the plaintiff would not be entitled to grant of a
decree.
31. Contention of Mr Venugopal that the defendant having
accepted novation of contract but only the quantum of the
amount being different, the court could have asked the
respondent-plaintiff to deposit a further sum of Rs 24,000
cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Apart from the
fact that such a contention had never been raised before the
appellate court, keeping in view the finding of fact arrived at
that there had in fact been no novation of contract, such a
course of action was not open. In any view of the matter, the
same would amount to reappreciation of evidence which was
beyond the review jurisdiction of the High Court.
33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction
of the court, which is as under:
''The law on the subject'' exercise of power of review, as
propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts
may be summarised as hereunder:
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or
error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the
face of record must be such an error which must strike one on
mere looking at the record and would not require any long-
drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that
the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient
reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of
fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the
facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.
The Apex Court while dealing with the scope of review has held
that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of the case without there
being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in
light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- : 10 :-
The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 in
paragraphs 12 and 26 has held as under :-
12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which
is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has
to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an
error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a
mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the
face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error
and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record
depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error
is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry,
only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant,
in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of
review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same
issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the
records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the
order. With this background, let us analyse the impugned
judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies
any of the tests formulated above.
26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an
apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self-
evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court
has rightly applied the said principles as provided under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In view of the same, we are unable to accept
the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with
the view expressed by the High Court.
In view of the above, there is no error apparent on the face of the
record, this review petition is hereby dismissed.
The review petition is dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen/-
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN
NAYAK
Date: 2022.03.08 18:35:17 +05'30'
