Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravin Kumar vs Arvind Kumar on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 504 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRAVIN KUMAR S/O SH. ARUN KUMAR GUPTE
OCCUPATION: SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE,
BRAHMAN MOHALLA, GAROTH DISTRICT MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
1. ARVIND KUMAR S/O SH. DATTATREYA GUPTE,
AGED 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER, R/O
BRAHMAN MOHALLA, GAROTH, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR, MANDSAUR, DIST. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEH. GAROTH,
MANDSAUR, DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. THE TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL GAROTH, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AMIT RAVAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE).
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 17-02-
2024 17:57:00
2
ORDER
This review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been filed seeking review of order dated 13.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.
15515/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner had challenged the orders dated 25.06.2019 and
24.07.2019 in the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India whereby the application under Section 10 of the CPC has been dismissed.
3. Having heard the matter at length, this Court came to the conclusion
that the application under Section 10 of the CPC filed by the petitioner before
the revenue authorities and one civil suit before the civil court of competent
jurisdiction having been filed, Section 10 of the CPC is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Relying on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
Vs. C.Parmeshwara, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 242, wherein it has been
held that Section 10 of the CPC applies to a suit instituted in a civil court
whereas the same cannot be applied to proceedings of other nature instituted
under any other statute. In the present case, where the civil suit was pending
before the Civil Court, whereas, the other proceeding was pending before the
revenue authorities. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. In the review petition, a ground has been raised by the petitioner that
Section 43 of the Land Revenue Code clearly mentions that the Code of Civil
Procedure would apply when there is no express provision made under this
Code. It is further stated that provisions of CPC is applicable in revenue
proceedings as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the
order deserves to be reviewed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the contentions made in the petition and submitted that there is no apparent
error on the face of the record so as to interfere with the order passed earlier.
Learned counsel for the State contended that relying on the judgment in case of
National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (supra) correct
view has been taken by this Court in dismissing the writ petition. In the
circumstances, the present review being bereft of merit and substance is liable
to be dismissed.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the grounds available
for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are
made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi
Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held
that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers
from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on
the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A
decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another
case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta
(2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo
in the garb of review."
7. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in
the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is
no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
8. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vidya
