Anand Kishore Sachdeva vs Sanjay Agrawal
2022 Latest Caselaw 14155 MP

                                                                     1


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT GWALIOR
                                                               BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA


                                             REVIEW PETITION NO. 747 of 2022
                                 Between:-
                                 ANAND KISHORE SACHDEVA S/O LATE
                                 SHRI RAMDHAN SACHDEVA, AGED 68
                                 YEARS,        R/O      GURUDWARA               SANTAR
                                 MURAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (M.P.)
                                                                                           ....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI -ADVOCATE)


                                 AND


                                 SANJAY AGRAWAL S/O                       LATE       SHRI
                                 RAMJIDAS AGRAWAL, AGED 63 YEARS,
                                 R/O KALIMAI SANTAR, MAAL ROAD,
                                 MURAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (M.P.)
                                                                                        ......RESPONDENT


                                 (BY SHRI BALDEV KUMAR - ADVOCATE)
                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Reserved on                              :               31-10-2022
                           Delivered on                             :               02-11-2022
                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   This Review Petition coming on for hearing, the Court
                           passed the following:-
                                                           ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

Petitioner has preferred this petition seeking review of the order dated 13th of June, 2022 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.268/2022 (Anand Kishore Sachdeva Vs. Sanjay Agrawal), whereby Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04/01/2022 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.13-A of 2016 has been dismissed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by this Court on 13th of June, 2022 in M.P. No.268/2022 requires review as material evidence which was required to put on record was denied by the trial Court without considering the reasons assigned in the application. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment was filed under the changed circumstance that the landlord was having another shop for starting his business and that shop was given by the landlord to some other person on rent. Without impleading aforesaid amendment, respondent would be denied to lead his evidence on the aforesaid point and this fact has not been considered by this Court while passing the impugned order which is an error apparent on the face of record therefore, the impugned order requires to be reviewed. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this review petition by setting aside the order dated 13/06/2022 passed in M.P. No.268/2022 and also prayed to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

3. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no error on the face of the record and, therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for. It is further submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is beyond the scope of review, rather the instant review petition filed is not maintainable as it has been filed by assigning the same reasons as mentioned in the original petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi & Others Vs. Sumitri Devi & Others [JT 1997 Vol.8 SC 480], Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329], Gaya Prasad Vs. Shri Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC 604]7 and prayed to dismiss this review petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order and documents available on record.

5. Vide impugned order dated 13/06/2022 passed in M.P. No.268/2022, this Court has dismissed the petition by observing as under:-

"On perusal of impugned order and documents available on record, it is apparent that the Court below by the impugned order has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by observing that proposed amendment is the subject-matter of evidence and the same does not require to be adjudicated at this stage. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent- landlord since

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

1957. It is also settled principle of law that the tenant cannot compel the landlord to choose specific accommodation for his bona fide need. It is the prerogative of the landlord to select the proper accommodation as per his bona fide need.

The scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is possible. The High court should exercise this power sparingly when there is patent perversity in the order or where there is a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity of approach in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition being sans merits rather, appears to be mala fide on the part of the petitioner of causing delay in trial, hence, it is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same shall be deposited by petitioner within a period of ten days in the Registry of this Court."

6. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC reads as under :-

"47. 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,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

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

(c) by a decision on 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."

7. The explanation of Order 47 Rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

8. In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club (AIR 2005 SC 592), it is observed that "the words "sufficient reason" occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'". Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008 (Gau) 161), it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision.

9. The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code which provides that a review of an order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of evidence. But in the present case no new and important matter has been brought before the Court by the petitioner. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM

errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin point those errors. (See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal

316).

10. In the light of above citations, it is well settled principle of law that the scope of review is very limited. There is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order passed by this Court as all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have already been considered while passing the impugned order.

11. Conseqeuntly, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the settled principle of law, no case for reviewing the order dated 13/06/2022 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 268/2022 is made out.

12. Resultantly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

Shubhankar*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 02-11-2022 06:15:35 PM