Rammilan (Since Dead) Through ... vs Smt. Janki (Since Dead) Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1533 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                                             ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           REVIEW PETITION No. 1033 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAMMILAN     (SINCE   DEAD)   THROUGH LEGAL
                          REPRESENTATIVE CHANDRIKA PRASAD BRAHMIN S/O
                          LATE SHRI SHIV PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 63
                          YEARS, VILLAGE JHAND TAHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN
                          DISTRICT SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY MR. A.K. GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    SMT. JANKI (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
                                REPRESENTATIVES    GHANSHYAM     PRASAD
                                PANDEY S/O RAMRUP PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 58
                                YEAR S, VILLAGE GAJGAVAN TAHSIL RAMPUR
                                BAGHELAN DISTRICT SATNA M.P. (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    LALIT D/O RAMRUP PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 63
                                YEAR S, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O
                                BADHARI,    TAHSIL   RAMPUR   BAGHELAN,
                                DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                COLLECTOR SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY MR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
                          AND MR. TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
                          NO.3/STATE)

                                Heard through Video Conferencing
                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 1/30/2023
1:20:49 PM
                                                               2
                                                               ORDER

By the instant review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 22.08.2022 passed in S.A. No.1685/2021 mainly on the ground that the respondents/defendants had filed the counter claim for declaration and permanent injunction but no claim for partition and possession was claimed and therefore, the trial Court in the excessive exercise of its jurisdiction granted the relief for partition and this important fact has also not been properly considered by the Appellate Court. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is defective and contrary to the provision of Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below failed to

see that the respondents beyond reasonable doubt had failed to prove their possession in the suit lands, whereas appellant/plaintiff has filed Ex.P/37 and Ex.P/38 to prove his possession and therefore, the findings given by the trial Court in relation to 2(a) and (b) are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. He further submits that the second appeal was dismissed without considering the material fact that the appellant/plaintiff has filed document Ex. P/36 to prove that the partition deed was dismissed by the SDO vide order dated 15.07.2022. Therefore, merely on the basis of concurrent findings, second appeal cannot be dismissed by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matters of Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and another (2001)8 SCC 243 and Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 475.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by supporting the order dated 22.08.2022 passed in S.A. No.1685/2021 and prays that no case for interference is made out.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 1/30/2023 1:20:49 PM

placed on record.

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."

Considering the arguments putforth by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order which is subject-matter of this review petition. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present review petition. Accordingly, being devoid of any merits present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE julie

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 1/30/2023 1:20:49 PM