Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Khandelwal vs Rajendra Jain on 15 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 996 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SATISH KUMAR KHANDELWAL S/O SHRI
SHANKARLALJI KHANDELWAL OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 78-A, PARSHWANATH NAGAR, RTO ROAD
INDORE RTO ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ROHIT KUMAR MANGAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
RAJENDRA JAIN S/O MANISHANKAR JAIN
1. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 86, NILKANTH COLONY
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. RACHNA JAIN W/O RAJENDRA JAIN
2. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 86, NILKANTH
COLONY, INODRE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MP THR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR
3. COLLECTRATE OFFICE, MOTI TABELA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SURENDRA DILLIWAL S/O RAMCHANDRA
DILLIWAL OCCUPATION: DOCTOR FH-339,
4.
SCHEME NO. 54, INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. SUDHA DILLIWAL W/O SURENDRA
DILLIWAL OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE FH-339,
5.
SCHEME NO. 54, INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SWAPNIL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 11/2, SOUTH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/21/2023
5:35:07 PM
-2-
TUKOGANJ, INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. BABITA CHELAWAT W/O RAJESH
CHELAWAT OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR OF
7.
SWAPNIL CONSTRUCTION, PVT. LTD. 11/2 SOUTH
TUKOGANJ, INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
DR. APARNA SHARMA W/O ASHOK SHARMA
8. OCCUPATION: SERVICE 55, VALLABH BHAWAN,
INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Heard, Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal appearing on behalf of the
petitioner/appellant/plaintiff.
This present review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 & 151 of the CPC seeking review/recalling of order dated
16.03.2020 passed in First Appeal No.647/2008.
Although, this review petition is filed beyond the period of
limitation but by giving the benefit of Corona period, the office has treated
this review petition filed within the time.
Facts in nutshell are, as under:-
1. On 27.04.2005, the petitioner and respondents no.1 and 2 entered
into an agreement of sale for 12 acres of land at the rate of 14 Lakhs per
acre. Out of total consideration of Rs.1,68,00,000/-, the petitioner said to
have made the payment of Rs.66,00,000/-. When the sale deed could not
be executed, the petitioner has filed the Civil Suit for specific performance
of contract on 15.05.2006. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in part
by directing the defendants to refund the amount of Rs.66,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/21/2023
5:35:07 PM
alongwith interest at the rate of 12%.
2. Being aggreived by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the
petitioner preferred an first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC which was
registered as FA No.647/2008. The first appeal came up for hearing on
05.12.2019 and after hearing both the parties at length vide order dated
16.03.2020, this Court has dismissed the first appeal. Instead of
approaching the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, the
petitioner/plaintiff has filed this review petition on the ground that the trial
Court has framed 17 issues for adjudication whereas the First Appellate
Court has only decided five questions while dismissing the appeal.
3. Shri Mangal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned First Appellate Court has wrongly held in Para 13 that the
petitioner/plaintiff/appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part.
Such findings are perverse and there is an error apparent in the face of
record.
4. Shri Mangal has tried to assail the order passed by the First
Appellate Court on each and every issues on the ground that these findings
are perverse.
5. In my considered opinion, this effort is beyond the scope of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Even if the wrong findings
have been given they cannot be challenged by way of review. The scope
of review under Order 47 Rule 1 as well as Section 114 of the CPC is very
very limited.
6. 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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/21/2023
5:35:07 PM
Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does
not even adumbrate 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/21/2023
5:35:07 PM
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 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."
7. This Court after considering the rival submissions of the parties
summarized all in the five issues and answered against petitioner/appellant.
Therefore, all the grounds challenging the impugned judgment and decree
as argued by the appellants have duly been considered and answered by the
Appellate Court. The same cannot be reopened by way of review petition.
Hence, the review petition is nothing but a misuse of process of law and
wastage of valuable time of the Court.
8. The petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-. The cost shall
be deposited in the M.P. High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 3/21/2023
5:35:07 PM
