Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhavya Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 8th OF DECEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1250 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHAVYA CHOUDHARY D/O VIJAY CHOUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 905-906 INDRADARSHAN BUILDING 19,
NEAR MILLAT NAGAR, NEW LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKSHAT KOTHARI- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE)
MALHARGANJ, INDORE COLLECTORATE
MOTI TABELA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. MADHURI CHOUDHARY W/O SANJAY
KUMAR CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 8TH
FLOOR, BRILLIANT PLATINA SCHEME NO.
78, PART II, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DHRUV CHOUDHARY S/O SANJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 8TH FLOOR,
BRILLIANT PLATINA SCHEME NO. 78,
PART II, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 11-Dec-23
2:23:07 PM
2
4. DEVIKA CHOUDHARY D/O SANJAY
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 8TH FLOOR,
BRILLIANT PLATINA SCHEME NO. 78,
PART II, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. MANJRI CHOUDHARY W/O VIJAY
KUMAR CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 905, 906,
INDRADARSHAN BUILDING 19, NEAR
MITTAL NAGAR, NEW LINK ROAD,
ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRIR.S. CHHABRA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI MUDIT MAHESHWARI-
ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Pranay
Verma passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed for review of order dated
17.10.2023 passed in W.A. No.793 of 2023.
2. By the aforesaid order, after hearing the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties, the appeal was reserved for orders. This petition
has been filed submitting that after closure of the arguments the counsel
for the petitioner had submitted that time be granted for filing of written
submission on which this Court granted a period of seven days for the
said purpose but the fact of granting of time for filing the written
submission has not been mentioned in the order hence there is an error
apparent on the face of record in passing the aforesaid order which needs
to be corrected.
3. After arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the appeal
were concluded, at the request of learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
this Court had granted a period of seven days for filing of the written
submissions which had been duly filed by the petitioner and are a part of
the record. We do not see any reason as to why the said fact of grant of
time for filing of written submissions should be recorded in the order. It is
also seen that along with the written submissions the petitioner had filed
reply to an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.7410 of 2023 and an
application to file additional documents on record.
4. After conclusion of the hearing, only written submissions can
be filed which have been duly filed by the petitioner and shall be deemed
to have been considered by this Court at the time of passing of the final
order. The application and the reply to a pending application filed after
conclusion of the hearing and the case being reserved for judgment
cannot be taken into consideration as there is no provision or procedure
for filing of the same after the matter being reserved for judgment.
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, we do not deem it necessary to
record the fact in the order dated 17.10.2023 that the petitioner was
granted time for filing of written submissions. The same cannot be said to
be a mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The review petition
is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
jyoti
