Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Johri vs Premnarayan Saraf (Dead) Through Lrs ... on 29 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 61 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH KUMAR JOHRI S/O LATE RAMDULAREY
SARAF, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 863 SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAM PRASAD KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PREMNARAYAN SARAF (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
VIVEK SARAF S/O LATE PREMNARAYAN SARAF,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 102 MANMOHAN NAGAR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. BABITA SARAF W/O RAKESH GUPTA D/O
LATE PREMNARAYAN SARAF, AGED ABOUT 49
YEAR S , R/O R.K. TRAVELS, MATA MANDIR,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT SARITA BADKUL W/O SHRI RAHUL BADKUL
D/O LATE PREMNARAYAN SARAF, AGED ABOUT
44 YEARS, R/O NEAR MATA MANDIR, LOHA
BAZAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMCHANDRA SARAF S/O RAMDULAREY SARAF,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O SAMDARIYA AAMBA
ARCADE, FLAT NO.213 SUNARHAI CHOWK
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SURESH JOHRI S/O RAMDULAREY SARAF, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O FIRM SURESH JEWELERS
NUNHAI SARAFA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MUNNA LAL SONI S/O LATE RAMDULAREY
SARAF, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SAMDARIYA
AAMBA ARCADE FLAT NO.212 AND 311 SUNARHAI
CHOWK JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRARTHANA
SURYAVANSHI
Signing time: 12/2/2023
3:31:45 PM
2
7. SMT. MAMTARANI W/O PREMNARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, 863 SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. VIRENDRA SARAF S/O PREMNARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, 863 SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. M/S SAMDARIYA BUILDERS THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SHRI KISHORE SAMDARIYA
THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY AJEET SAMDARIYA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SON OF LATE KESHRI
CHAND SAMDARIYA RESIDENT OF FIRM 16
SAMDARIYA ABHUSHAN JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SURENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O GOPAL PRASAD
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 1206 NEW
COLONY CHERITAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. SUBHASH KUMAR YADAV S/O GOPAL PRASAD
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 1206 NEW
COLONY CHERITAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. VIKAS JOHRI S/O RAMESH KUMAR JOHRI, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, 863 SAURASHTRA LODGE 2ND
FLOOR SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. PRAKASH JOHRI S/O RAMESH KUMAR JOHRI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 863 SAURASHTRA LODGE
2ND FLOOR SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
14. ASHISH JOHRI S/O RAMESH KUMAR JOHRI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 863 SAURASHTRA LODGE
2ND FLOOR SARAFA BAZAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKALP SONI - ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI MUKESH KUMAR
AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 , 5 AND 6)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRARTHANA
SURYAVANSHI
Signing time: 12/2/2023
3:31:45 PM
3
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed for review/recalling of order
dated 07.12.2022 passed in M.P. No.4865/2018 by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has wrongly
rejected the aforesaid miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution
of India. The said petition was filed being aggrieved by interlocutory order
dated 04.09.2018 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in
pending Civil Suit No.71-A of 2015. By the said order dated 04.09.2018, the
trial Court had rejected the application for transposition of one of the
defendants as plaintiff to the suit. This Court while passing the order under
review has upheld the validity of said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that this Court while dismissing the miscellaneous petition has referred
to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S Madanappa vs.
Chandrawma and Another reported in 1965 AIR 1812 SCR, the said
judgment has been referred to but there is no deliberation by this Court why the
said judgment is not applicable. He further contends that if the said judgment
had been deliberated upon, than the result would have been different.
Per contra, Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate appearing for the
contesting respondent has submitted that the judgment in the case of R.S
Madanappa (supra) was not applicable because at that time the provision of
Order 23 Rule 1-A of CPC had not been enacted and the said provisions came
in the statute book with effect from 01.02.1977. Learned counsel for respondent
further submits that transposition was permissible only when the plaintiff was
withdrawing or abandoning the suit, which was not the case in the present
matter.
From the rival contentions of the parties, it appears that the present
review is not based on any error apparent on face of the record but on merits of
the case. It is case of the petitioner that this Court while dismissing the
miscellaneous petition has not properly considered the case of R.S
Madanappa (supra).
It is well settled in law that such type of merit review is not permissible
and in guise of review rehearing of the matter cannot be done. Powers of review
are limited and review jurisdiction cannot be invoked even in the order is
erroneous, but only if there is grave error apparent on the face of the record.
The said error has to be self evident.
Kindly see the cases of S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and
Other reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 185, SASI vs. Aravindakshan
reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 1, Chandralata Gupta vs. Umesh Kumar
Sinhal reported in 2012 (2) MPLJ 547, Satya Pal Anand vs. Bal Niketan
Nyas, Bhopal and Others reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 83 and Allauddin vs.
Sayra Bi and Others reported in 2015 (3) MPLL 560.
In view of the above as the review sought in the present case is on merits
of the order under review, no case is made out for review/recalling of the order.
The review petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
