Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2023
Author: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 974 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMSWAROOP S/O LATE RAMGOPAL NAYAK
BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BABAKHERA TEHSIL BALDEOGARH DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAGDISH PRASAD S/O LATE RAMGOPAL NAYAK
BRAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADKHERA TEHSIL TIKAMGARH AT
PRESENT RESIDING AT PRADHANPURA
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRENARAYAN S/O LATE RAMGOPAL NAYAK
BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BADKHERA TEHSIL BALDEOGARH DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
P R A D H A N P U R A TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RADHIKA PRASAD S/O LATE RAMGOPAL NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BADKHERA
TEHSIL BALDEOGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PRADHANPURA
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R.S. KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. EXCUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES
D EPARTM EN T DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
.....RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2023.02.17 14:54:01 IST
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been filed for review of the order dated 29.07.2022 passed in Civil Revision
No.383 of 2016.
I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the record of the
revision as well as impugned order under review.
After considering the grounds narrated by the petitioner in this review
petition and the record, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face
of the record in the order passed by this Court.
The scope of review, is very limited and has been dealt with in catena of
decisions. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order
suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the
application for review cannot sit on appeal over the order passed by it. An
order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is
erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken
by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the
power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its
judgment/decision. It is apparently clear that all the grounds taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in detail are mentioned in the petition with the intention
to obtain the fresh findings of this Court. It is a settled law that every error
whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order
Signature Not Verified
47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising
SAN
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2023.02.17 14:54:01 IST out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47
Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the
record of the case. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court
on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be
considered on merits. [See : Meena Bhanja v. Nirmal, (1995) 1 SCC 170;
Haridas Das v. Usha Rani 2006 (3) MPLJ (SC) 226; Union of India v.
Sandur (2013) 8 SCC 337; State of Rajasthan v. Surendra, 2014 MPLJ
OnLine (SC) 1; Sivakami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 4 SCC 587; J.R.
Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v.
Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West
Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]
In view of the aforesaid enunciations of law, as there is no apparent error
on the face of the record, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, no
ground for review or modification of the order dated 29.07.2022 is made out.
Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2023.02.17 14:54:01 IST
