Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiksha Prasarak Samiti Through ... vs The President on 3 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
R.P. No. 690/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 3rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 690 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHIKSHA PRASARAK SAMITI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT B.L. JAIN
S/O SHRI MISHRILAL JI JAIN NIVALI ROAD, SENDHWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
THE PRESIDENT NAGAR PALIKA SENDHWA (MADHYA
1.
PRADESH)
CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA SENDHWA,
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)
This review petition coming on for hearing on admission this
day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking
review of order dated 23.3.2022 whereby Writ Appeal No.907/2020
- : 2 :-
R.P. No. 690/2022
has been dismissed and order dated 31.7.2020 passed in W.P. No.
6646/2019 has been upheld.
The review petitioner has filed this review petition in the style
of appeal seeking re-appreciation of the entire material again in
order to get the relief claimed in the writ petition. The Writ Court as
well as Writ Appellate Court both have dismissed the writ petition
and the writ appeal on the ground that the petitioner has no right to
claim renewal of the lease.
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for the review
petitioner submits that the right of renewal has been granted by the
legislature by enacting M.P. Nagar Palika Achal Sampati Antaran
Niyam, 2016, hence it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to
renew the lease.
The aforesaid contention of learned senior counsel has no
substance. The lease in question had already been expired in the
year 2013 and possession was taken thereafter, hence the Rules
which came into force in the year 2016 will not help the petitioner.
Even otherwise, the petitioner was not using the said land given on
lease. There is no mistake on the face of the record. The scope of
review is very limited.
The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das v/s Usha Rani
Bank (Smt.) & Others : (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
- : 3 :-
R.P. No. 690/2022
states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". 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 reason". 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.1 held as follows: (SCR p. 186)
"[T]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
'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error. ... 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."
"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. 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
- : 4 :-
R.P. No. 690/2022
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."
The writ petition as well as the writ appeal both have been
dismissed by detailed and reasoned orders. Despite that, in order to try
the luck again, the review petitioner has filed this review petition. This
is nothing but shear wastage of court's time despite having remedy to
approach the Apex Court. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed
with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) to be deposited
by the petitioner in the State Legal Aid Service Authority, Indore.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] [ ANIL VERMA]
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
