Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd Imaan (Mohd Rumman) vs Chinta Singh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
RP No. 556 of 2023
(MOHD IMAAN (MOHD RUMMAN) Vs CHINTA SINGH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 06-02-2024
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Gupta and
Ms. Neerja Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Lalwani and Shri Abhishek Singh - Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Heard on I.A. No.19378/2023 which is an application for bringing
additional ground on record for dismissal of this review petition.
As averred in the aforesaid application, this review petition is not
maintainable for the reason that on earlier occasion, two review petitions i.e.
R.P. No.527 of 2023 and R.P. No.548 of 2023 had been filed and decided by
the Court. Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that
R.P. No.527 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2023 and during
pendency of the said petition, the present review petition (R.P. No.556 of 2023)
had already been filed on 12.06.2023 that too by the same counsel and at the
time of hearing of R.P. No.527 of 2023, the counsel for the petitioner could
have brought the said fact to the knowledge of the Court, but he deliberately not
disclosed it which shows his conduct. According to him, review after review is
impermissible under the law and as such, this review petition deserves to be
dismissed as not maintainable.
On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has opposed the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and submitted that it is not a review by the same
party whose review had earlier been dismissed. He has pointed out that review
petition i.e. R.P. No.527 of 2023 was filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Nazma and
they were not represented by him. It is further submitted that legal heirs of Smt.
Nazma were the necessary party and, therefore, review petition was filed saying
that in the first appeal without giving them an opportunity of hearing,
adjudication is not proper. It is also contended that that the judgment passed
against the dead person is contrary to law because Smt. Nazma had expired on
30.03.2023 and appeal was heard on 13.04.2023. He has submitted that the
Court had rejected the said review petition on the ground that one of the legal
heirs of deceased Smt. Nazma is already on record and, therefore, appeal
would not abate and judgment passed in the said appeal is not vitiated only on
that ground as their interest was protected by the other legal heir and as such,
there is no mistake apparent on the fact of record. Shri Agrawal, learned Senior
Advocate has submitted that that though the review petition (R.P. No.527 of
2023) got dismissed saying that one of the legal heirs of Smt. Nazma is on
record, therefore, that does not cause any prejudice to the other legal heirs who
were not represented by the counsel because their interest has ultimately been
protected by one of the legal heirs who contested the matter, but he has
submitted that present review petition has been filed by the petitioner who is not
at all related with the review petitioners who have earlier filed the review
petitions whereas he is directly affected with the order which is sought to be
recalled. It is also submitted that there is no bar for filing the review petition by
a party having different status as the challenge is on different grounds than that
of raised by other petitioners in earlier review petitions which review got
dismissed. According to Shri Agrawal, the present petitioner is directly affected
with the order and was party to the litigation and, therefore, his review petition
has to be heard on merits and it cannot be rejected on the ground that earlier
two review petitions have already been dismissed.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not
convinced with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent
No.1 for the respondents that review by the other party having different status
cannot be rejected only on the ground that some other review petitions had
already been filed and rejected. Although, second review by the same party is
not maintainable, but here situation is different and merely because counsel in
two review petitions is common that cannot be made a ground for rejecting the
present review petition.
Consequently, I.A. No.19378/2023 being without any substance, is
hereby dismissed.
List this case on 28.02.2024.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
DEVASHISH
MISHRA
2024.02.13
11:18:44 +05'30'
