Smt.Devki Tiwari vs Smt.Rambeti Tiwari
2022 Latest Caselaw 11734 MP

                               1
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
                    ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                REVIEW PETITION No. 491 of 2019

       BETWEEN:-
       SMT. DEVKI TIWARI W/O BRAJESH
       TIWARI, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
       BASANT VIHAR COLONY NEAR MELA
       GROUND MORENA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
       MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
       (BY SHRI ANIL SAXENA- ADVOCATE )

       AND
1.     SMT. RAMBETI TIWARI W/O BHAGWAN
       LAL TIWARI, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDENT
       OF BASANT VIHAR COLONY NEAR MELA
       GROUND MORENA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
       MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.     BHAGWAN LAL TIWARI S/O HARNARYAN
       TIWARI, AGED 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF
       BASANT VIHAR COLONY NEAR MELA
       GROUND MORENA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
       MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
       (BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH BAHDORAIYA-ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Civil Revision No.406 of 2018.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.5.2018 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Morena in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2018, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. It is further submitted that as the plaintiff Smt. Rambeti has executed the sale deed and she was made party in the sale deed, therefore, she is required to pay ad valorem Court fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, to seek declaration and nullity of the sale deed 15.02.2017 but the Court did not consider this legal point while passing the impugned order. In support of the argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed in the cases of Kherajmal vs. Abdul Gani;

[1982 MPWN (430)], Bairgailal vs. Narottam and Others;[ 1978 (I) MPWN 21], Kamalkishore vs. Jagannath Prasad;[2005 (II) MPWN (43)], Israt Jahan (Smt.) vs. Rajia Begum and Others;[2010 (I) MPWN 32] & Shyama Charan Paul and another vs. Roopali Promoters and Construction;[2010 (I) MPWN 87]. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the aforesaid error is apparent on the face of record, therefore, prayed to review of impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.406 of 2018.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record as would warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, relying on the order judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Nawab John and Others vs. V.N.

Subramaniyam;[(2012) 7 SCC 738] and the order passed by this Court in the case of Manish Parashat vs. Pratap & Others;[2018(2) RN 80], this review petition filed by the petitioner deserves dismissal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

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,

(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.

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.

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.

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 petitioners. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such 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).

In the light of above citations, it is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. There is no error apparent on the face of record. This Court has already considered all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, no case for reviewing the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.406 of 2018 is made out. Consequently, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE pwn* PAWAN KUMAR 2022.09.06 18:13:34 +05'30'