Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubhendra Mishra vs Devendra Mishra on 1 March, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 179 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHUBHENDRA MISHRA S/O SHRI DEVENDRANATH
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O VILLAGE MANGAWAN(RANIPURWA),
TEHSIL MANGAWAN, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.S. JHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1A. DEVENDRA MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHWANATH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANGAWAN (RANIPURWA),
TEHSIL MANGAWAN, WARD NO 4 DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
1B. PRAYAGDATT MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHWANATH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANGAWAN WARD NO 4
POST MANGAWAN THANA AND TEHSIL
MANGAWAN DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
1C. JITENDRANATH MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHWANATH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANGAWAN WARD NO 4
POST MANGAWAN THANA AND TEHSIL
MANGAWAN DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
1D. BALKRISHNA MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHWANATH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANGAWAN WARD NO 4
POST MANGAWAN THANA AND TEHSIL
MANGAWAN DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 3/7/2024
1:42:18 PM
2
2A. RANGNATH S/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
MANGAWAN NAGAR PARISHAD MANGAWAN
WARD NO 4 P.O. AND TEHSIL MANGAWAN
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2B. KAPIL MUNI MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
MANGAWAN NAGAR PARISHAD MANGAWAN
WARD NO 4 P.O. AND TEHSIL MANGAWAN
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2C. SUSHILA DEVI D/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOOMI
(GURH) TEHSIL GURH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2D. SAVITRI DEVI D/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DIGHOUR
POST DHERA TEHSIL MAUGANJ DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2E9. ARUNA DEVI D/O LAXMAN PRASAD W/O
NARENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SURSA TEHSIL RAIPUR KARCHULIYAN
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2F. SANDHYA DEVI D/O LAXMAN PRASAD W/O
RAMNIWAS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R./O
VILLAGE KOLAHA POST PATAI THANA GARH
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2G. ABHA DEVI D/O LAXMAN PRASAD W/O ARUN
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
DUBGAWAN POST KATAKI TEHSIL SIRMOUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3A. BHAIYALAL DWIVEDI S/O LATESHRI HIRAMNAI
DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE RANIPURWA
NAGAR PARISHAD MANGAWAN WARD NO 8 POST
MANGAWAN TEHSIL MANGAWAN DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3B. SUHSILA PANDEY D/O LATE SHRI HIRAMANI
DWIVEDI W/O BAIJNATH PANDEY, AGED ABOUT
54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O VILLAGE
BELWA PAIKAN TEHSIL RAIPUR KARCHULIYAN
DISTRICT REWA PRESENTLY R/O GAUTAM
NAGAR BHOPAL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 3/7/2024
1:42:18 PM
3
3C. PREMA DEVI UPADHYAY D/O LATE SHRI
HIRAMANI DWIVEDI W/O ANIRUDDHA PRASAD
UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BELWA PAIKAN TEHSIL RAIPUR KARCHULIYAN
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Review Petition has been preferred to review the judgment
dtd.13.10.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.972/1997.
2. Learned counsel submits that upon death of appellant 1-Smt. Lolariya,
one application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed for substitution of her
legal representatives on the basis of Will dtd. 01.06.2005. As copy of the Will
was not filed along with the application, therefore, the said application was
dismissed by interim order dtd. 29.09.2005. He submits that thereafter another
application was filed on 27.10.2016 for recalling of the order dtd.29.09.2005
along with copy of Will, which remained pending and was not decided even at
the time of final decision of second appeal. By taking this Court to the order
sheet dtd. 21.11.2017, learned counsel submits that IA No.14686/2017 was
directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. He submits that
the aforesaid error being apparent on the face of record, instant review petition
deserves to be allowed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Order dtd. 29.09.2005 shows that the application under Order 22 rule
3 CPC (IA No.4679/2005) was filed claiming succession to the estate of Smt.
Lolariya on the basis of Will, but no such Will was placed on record, therefore,
the application was rejected. Admitedly, no application for recalling the order
dtd.29.09.2005 was filed within a period of 30 days prescribed for filing the
review petition. It is also clear from the record that application for recalling the
order dtd.29.09.2005 was filed on 27.10.2016, which was clearly barred by
limitation.
5. It is also undisputed fact that even at the time of final hearing of the
second appeal, this application (dtd. 27.10.2016) for recalling the order
dtd.29.09.2005 was not pressed.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error apparent
on the face of record in the final judgment dtd. 13.10.2022 passed in S.A
No.972/1997.
7. Resultantly this Review Petition is dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
