Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumari Sandhya Maravi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5403 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KUMARI SANDHYA MARAVI D/O LATE V.S. MARAVI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGANBADI
WORKER R/O VILLAGE CHANDRANI BARGAON
SAMNAPUR, TAH. AND DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER JABALPUR ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PARIYOJNA OFFICER SAMNAPUR MAHILA BAL
VIKAS SAMNAPUR DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. ROSHNI TEKAM W/O SHRI PREMPRAKASH
TEKAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
CHANDRANI BARGAON SAMNAPUR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ROHIT JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & SHRI ASHOK LALWANI - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
I.A.No.2403/2024 has been filed by respondent no.3/applicant for recall
of order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.5403/2023.
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for respondent no.3/applicant that
against the order under review, the respondent no.3 had preferred Writ Appeal
No.1825/2023, which was withdrawn simplicitor on 5.12.2023. Thereafter,
another application was filed in Writ Appeal No.1825/2023 and by order dated
8.2.2024 the applicant was permitted to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to
avail all such remedies, as available in law.
3. It is submitted that since writ appeal was not decided on merits,
therefore, doctrine of merger would not apply and this application for
modification of order is maintainable.
4. It is further submitted that this Court, while passing the final order, has
doubted the Pariwar Patra, relied upon by the respondent no.3 and has held
that the said document appears to be concocted and manipulated. It is
submitted that the respondent no.3 is in possession of original Pariwar Patra,
which can be produced for perusal by this Court.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for respondent
no.3/applicant.
6. I.A.No.2403/2024 has been filed for modification of order dated
26.09.2023, which in fact is in the shape of review of the order. If the
respondent no.3/applicant is of the view that this Court had passed an
erroneous order, then she has a remedy of assailing the same before the Higher
Forum. In fact that remedy was also availed. However, the writ appeal filed by
the respondent no.3 was withdrawn.
7. The counsel for applicant may be true in submitting that since the writ
appeal was not decided on merits, therefore, the doctrine of merger may not
apply but crux of the matter is that in the light of limited scope of interference at
the stage of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC coupled with the fact that under
the garb of review, this Court cannot reopen its own order on merit and
respondent no.3 and her counsel were granted full opportunity at the time of
hearing, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
8. It is further submitted by counsel for applicant that in the light of
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for
Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in
AIR 2005 SC 592, if the subsequent events by which one of the party has
accepted its mistake, then it can be a good ground for review.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
10. It is not the case of the applicant that any of the party has admitted its
mistake after the petition was finally decided. The counsel for respondent no.3
was given full opportunity at the time of haring. It is not the case of the
applicant that some document, which was not in existence or which was not in
possession of the respondent no.3 on the date of hearing, has been discovered
which may have bearing on the outcome of the petition. If the respondent no.3
or her counsel were negligent in prosecuting their case, then this Court is not
expected to compel the litigant to argue and prepare the case in a particular
manner because it may indicate that the Court may be having some personal
interest in the case. The Court has to act as an independent agency and it is for
the litigants to prepare the case and argue in the manner of their choice. If the
counsel for respondent no.3 or the respondent no.3 were not interested in
justifying the Pariwar Patra or they failed to do so, then the lacunas cannot be
filled up by filing review. If such a practice is allowed then it would lead to an
unending procedure.
11. Under these circumstance, this Court is of considered opinion that
under the garb of application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, this Court cannot
reopen its own order on merits.
12. However, if the respondent no.3 is of view that her case was not
properly contested by her counsel and he is guilty of professional misconduct,
then she can approach the Bar Council for redressal of her grievance because in
the light of order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of R.
Muthukrishnan Vs. High Court of Madras, reported in (2019) 1 6 SCC
407, this Court cannot comment upon the professional misconduct of a lawyer
and it is within the exclusive domain of the Bar Council to adjudicate as to
whether the lawyer is guilty of professional misconduct or not?
13. With aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
TG /-
