Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahidan Bi @ Shanti Bai vs Shakila on 20 February, 2023
Author: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 930 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHAHIDAN BI @ SHANTI BAI W/O LATE HORILAL,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KINNAR, R/O
WARD NO.1, BAMHANI BANJAR, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUSHIL MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAKILA D/O LATE CHAMPA KINNAR, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.1, BAMHANI
BANJAR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAMILA D/O LATE CHAMPA KINNAR, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.1 BAMHANI
BANJAR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR MANDLA,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DURGESH KUMAR SINGRORE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Heard on I.A. No.8900/2022, an application for condonation of delay.
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
As per office report, this review petition is time barred by 124 days.
Date: 2023.02.23 12:52:49 IST
Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.
The delay occurred in filing this petition is hereby condoned.
Heard.
This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Civil
Procedure Code has been filed seeking review/modification of judgment dated
02.03.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.1857/2018.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court while passing the
impugned judgment, has committed an error in holding that the appellant, first
time appeared before the lower appellate Court in the capacity of objector,
therefore, he has no locus standi in the case. It is further contended that
respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have deliberately not impleaded the
appellant/objector as party in the civil suit, therefore, the substantial question of
law as proposed in the memo of appeal, requires consideration. It is also
contended that the lower appellate Court committed an error of law by not
considering the Will dated 30.07.2013, which was filed by the appellant/objector
(present petitioner).
On the other hand, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has vehemently
opposed the contentions put-forth by counsel for the petitioner and has
submitted that the impugned judgment was passed after appreciating all the
material available on record, therefore, the same does not require any further
consideration in absence of any error apparent on record.
This Court while passing the impugned judgment, considered the
submissions raised by counsel for the parties and took note of the fact that
Signature Not Verified
SAN
respondents No.1 and 2 filed a civil suit before the trial Court against general
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
public and the State, which was dismissed by the trial Court, but the present
Date: 2023.02.23 12:52:49 IST
petitioner was not a party before the trial Court in the civil suit. Thereafter, this
Court taking into account the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of V.N. Krishna Murthy and Another Vs. Ravikumar and Others
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 501, found that no substantial question of law arises
in the appeal, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner is
unable to point-out any error apparent on the face of record, which requires
consideration in this review petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contentions raised
by counsel for the petitioner in this review petition do not establish "Âœerror on
the face of record"Â.
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 counsel
for the petitioner in detail are mentioned in the petition with an intention to
obtain the fresh findings of this Court.
In the case of Asharfi Devi Vs. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 86 , it has
Signature Not Verified
SAN been held by Hon'™ble the Supreme Court that it is a settled law that every
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2023.02.23 12:52:49 IST error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal
arising 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
record of the case.
For review, there must be error apparent on the face of record, re-
appraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to
exercise the appellate jurisdiction, which is not permissible. Mere fact that two
views on the same subject are possible, is not a ground for review of the earlier
order passed by a Bench of the same strength; where the remedy of appeal is
available, the power of review should be exercised by the Court with greater
circumspection. 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 preceding analysis, there is no error apparent on the face
of record. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground for review
or modification of the order dated 02.03.2022 is made-out.
Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2023.02.23 12:52:49 IST
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2023.02.23 12:52:49 IST
