Saurabh Malpani S/O Shri Shyam ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Home ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1966 MP

                         - : 1 :-
                                               R.P. No. 75/2023



       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. 75 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SAURABH MALPANI S/O SHRI SHYAM MALPANI THROUGH SHYAM
MALPANI S/O SHRI RADHAKRISHNA MALPANI, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, AAD. 1 701 NAVKARAN PLOT 117 LOKHANDWALA
COMPLEX ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
                                          .....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRABHJIT JAUHAR, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
LOKENDRA JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT
1. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
   DISTRICT BHOPAL. (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT
2.
   OF POLICE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   OFFICER IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION POLICE STATION
3.
   LASUDIA INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   DIVYA MALPANI W/O SAURABH MALPANI, AGED ABOUT 35
4. YEARS, CRYSTA-1, APOLLO DB CITY, NIPANIA, UNIT NO 1403
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   MIRAYA MALPANI (MINOR) CARE OF DIVYA MALPANI W/O
   SAURABH MALPANI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CRYSTA-1,
5.
   APOLLO DB CITY, NIPANIA, UNIT NO 1403 INDORE (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                   - : 2 :-
                                                               R.P. No. 75/2023



                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI RAUNAK CHOUKSE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 4
& 5.
(SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA,       GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE.)



      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 21.12.2022 whereby W.P. No.14089/2022 seeking writ of habeas corpus has been dismissed.

The aforesaid writ petition was argued at length by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents on merit. Instead of challenging the said order by way of SLP the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of present review petition. When each and every point raised by the petitioner have been considered and the writ petition was dismissed, the review petition raising same grounds for reconsideration is not permissible under the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. 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

- : 3 :-

R.P. No. 75/2023

the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely 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

- : 4 :-

R.P. No. 75/2023

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."

The petitioner is becoming habitual litigant. He is filing number of writ petitions and review petitions before the High Court through his father on power of attorney. He is residing in Canada and harassing the wife living in Indore (India). Since he can afford the filing of various writ petitions and review petitions, that does not mean he can be permitted to waste the precious time of this Court. Hence, this review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondent/wife in three weeks from today.

         [ VIVEK RUSIA ]                            [ ANIL VERMA]
             JUDGE.                                     JUDGE.
Alok/-