Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Soni vs Ravishankar Chourasiya on 19 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 1 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. NARAYAN SONI S/O SHRI SHAYAMLAL SONI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST CHANDANGAOUN TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DINESH KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI BALRAM SONI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O CHOUTI BAZAR, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SOURABH KUMAR SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAVISHANKAR CHOURASIYA S/O SHRI
LAKHANLAL CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S , CHARGAOUN TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
( BY SHRI A.R.S. CHOUHAN- PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2/STATE.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 47 Rule 1 of CPC is preferred seeking review
of order dated 30-10-2023 passed in FA No. 466/21 whereby an application (IA
No. 1576/24) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been allowed.
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No.1 in this petition filed FA No.
466/21 challenging the judgment and decree dated 29-10-2011 passed by
District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 5-A/11 on 29-06-2021 and also
filed an IA No. 4393/21 under Section 5 r/w Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963
for condonation of delay of 2,994 days in filing the appeal.
3. Notice of IA No. 4393/21 was issued to the respondents/plaintiffs and
they marked their presence and filed reply of IA No. 4393/21. On the date of
hearing of IA No. 4393/21, the respondents /plaintiffs were not before the Court
and this Court heard the appellant/defendant-Ravishankar and allowed IA No.
4393/21.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-2023, this review petition
have been preferred on the ground that the above mentioned reply dated 17-09-
2021 of petitioners was not taken into consideration in the order dated 30-10-
2023. The R/1 had knowledge when the ex-parte decree dated 29-12-2011 was
passed and they prosecuted the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, so
its quite clear that day by day explanation or reasons not been tested by first
appellate Court. So in order to calculate the limitation the period was started
when the decree was passed in the first time and not from Apex Court last
order.
6. Heard.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1- Ravishankar opposed the
prayer and submitted that the impugned order has been passed taking into
consideration all materials and remaining absent at the time of hearing, petitioner
cannot frustrate the cause of justice.
8. The scope of review before this Court is mentioned in Order 47 Rule
1 of CPC which is being reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
Order XLVII
1. Application for review of judgment.--
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
( c ) b y a decision o n a reference fro m a Court o f Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face o f the record o r for any other sufficient
reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order
made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency o f an
appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal
is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which
he applied for the review.
Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a question o f law
o n which the judgment o f 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.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320,has laid down t h e following
principles ''when review will be maintainable'':-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge o f the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
10. The impugned order dated 30-10-2023 is being reproduced:-
"Heard on I.A. No.4393/2021, an application for condonation of delay. There is a
delay of 2994 days in filing the present appeal.
Taking a lenient view and for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is
supported by an affidavit of appellant, this application is allowed. Delay caused in filing the
appeal is condoned.
List this case for arguments on the point of admission after two weeks."
11. Due to non-appearance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 their reply has
not been considered and this non-consideration is covered under the error
apparent on the face of record.
12. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed and the order dated 30-
10-2023 is set aside. A copy of the order be placed in FA No. 466/21.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
PG
