Anand Kumar Pandey vs Ramakant Pathak
2023 Latest Caselaw 3058 MP

                                                      1

                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                                          ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                         REVIEW PETITION No. 1015 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    ANAND KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHANKARSHAN
                                PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE PANTI
                                TEHSIL GUDH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    RAVI KUMAR S/O SHANKARSHAN PRASAD
                                PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE PANTI TEHSIL GUDH
                                DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SURYA PRAKASH PANDEY S/O SHANKARSHAN
                                PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
                                PANTI TEHSIL GUDH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    BHOLE SHANKAR PANDEY S/O SHANKARSHAN
                                PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
                                PANTI TEHSIL GUDH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          5.    PUNEET KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHANKARSHAN
                                PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
                                PANTI TEHSIL GUDH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          6.    SMT. RAMWATI S/O SHANKARSHAN PRASAD
                                PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                HOUSE WIFE R/O VILLAGE PANTI TEHSIL GUDH
                                DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI NEERAJ ASHAR - ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 2/21/2023
3:24:31 PM
                                                             2
                          AND
                          1.    RAMAKANT PATHAK S/O CHINTAMANI PATHAK
                                VILLAGE PANTI TEHSIL GUDH DISTRICT REWA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    TEHSILDAR TEHSIL GURH            DISTRICT REWA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,          GUDH DISTRICT
                                REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI
                          P.N. VERMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3)

                                Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                             ORDER

By the instant review petition, the petitioners are seeking review of order dated 06.09.2022 passed in M.P. No.1573/2022.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. Bal Niketan Nyas, Bhopal & Others [2015 (3) MPLJ 83] has held that:-

"in the guise of review, re-hearing is not permissible. In order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record."

Apparently, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order, which is subject-matter of this review petition. All the facts and circumstances of the case have been considered in right perspective. The contention of the petitioner that the spot map was prepared on 03.04.2021 and not on 30.10.2019 is incorrect because the petitioner himself filed document vide Anneuxre-A/4 in which the date of spot inspection is mentioned as 30.10.2019.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 2/21/2023 3:24:31 PM

order is in accordance with law and no interference is required in the aforesaid order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the order as well as the material available on record.

T he order dated 06.09.2022 in Misc. Petition No.1573/2022 has been passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties on merit in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the review petition. The Courts cannot exercise its power in review for reconsidering the judgment / order on merits.

Accordingly, the present review petition is hereby dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE pn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 2/21/2023 3:24:31 PM