Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nawalchand vs Babulal Thr. Lrs Sheelchand on 4 March, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 88 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
NAWALCHAND S/O SHRI DAYACHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. N.K. GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. RASHI KUSHWAH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BABULAL THR. LRS SHEELCHAND S/O SHRI
BABULAL JAIN S/O SHRI ABEERCHAND, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MAHENDRA JAIN S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ASHOK JAIN S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ANOOP JAIN S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. SUDHA JAIN D/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SINDHU S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL
BASODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-Mar-24
11:21:21 AM
2
7. ARUN S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL
BASODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SUDHEER S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA SHAMSHABAD,
TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. SNADHYA D/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SMT. PRIYADARSHANI D/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. PRASHANT S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. SHAILENDRA S/O SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD, TEHSIL BASODA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. BALMUKUND S/O ABEERCHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA MADHAV
NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SHARADCHAND S/O NAWALCHAND JAIN (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. SMT. MANORAMA W/O
SHARADCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NA SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
15. MAYANK S/O SHRI SHARADCHAND, AGED ABOUT
13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G MOTHER
SMT. MANORAMA W/O SHARADCHAND JAIN
SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. PRASHU S/O SHRI SHARADCHAND, AGED ABOUT
10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR U/G MOTHER
SMT. MANORAMA W/O SHARADCHAND JAIN
SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SHRI RAJENDRA
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 06-Mar-24
11:21:21 AM
3
NA SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. SMT. INDRADEVI W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
SHAMSHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
19. COLLECTOR VIDISHA VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In compliance of the Court order dated 13.03.2023, the corrections are
carried out on Board.
The present Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is arising out
of judgment dated 13.01.2016 passed in S.A.No.232/2011, whereby this Court
while hearing second appeal had denied admission and dismissed the appeal
being sans merit.
Learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Rashi Kushwah - Advocate
assails the said order on various grounds touching merits of the matter. While
criticizing paragraphs 9 and 19 of the judgment, it has been contended that the
findings arrived at therein do not commensurate with the documentary evidence
available on record and therefore, the present review petition deserves to be
allowed and the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 deserves to be recalled and
second appeal is required to be heard on merits.
Per contra, Mr. Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the respondent while
placing reliance in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others ,
reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320 submitted that review proceedings are not by
way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the
view of the judgment cannot be a ground for invoking the same. It was further
submitted that as long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the
parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said matter
had summarized the principles on which the review can said to be maintainable :
(i) Upon discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner could not be produced by him ;
(ii) If there is mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record ;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
It was further submitted that any other sufficient reasons has been
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been held that a reason
sufficient on the ground at least analogous to those specified in the rule should
be sufficient reason and if no ground as mentioned in the aforesaid order is
demonstrated, no review could be entertained. It was further submitted that the
present review petition is devoid of any substance, therefore, is liable to be
dismissed.
After hearing rival contentions and perusing the entire record, this Court
finds that the scope and exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
of CPC has been summerzied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of its
judgment. Apart from the judgment which has been cited by learned counsel for
the respondents, in a very recent judgment passed in case of S. Murali
Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & others in Civil Appeal No.1167-1170
of 2023, following principles have been laid down :
"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some
mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is
found. But error on the face of record must be such
an error which must strike one on mere looking at
the record and would not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for
any sufficient reason which is wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or law by a court
or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated
by way of invoking the doctrine actus curia
neminem gravabit."
As per aforesaid decision, one of ground for review can be that there is
mistake or error apparent on the face of record, but error on the face of record
must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and
would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions. Further the power of review should not
be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits and the
such power can be exercised only for any sufficient reason which is wide
enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even by an
advocate.
This Court while analyzing the facts of the present matter in the context
of above guideline, finds that no error or mistake apparent on the face of record
could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument which
has been advanced were touching the merits of the matter and under the guise
of review, the Court cannot sit and adjudicate as an appellate authority, as it has
been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, even if the decision is erroneous on
merits, it cannot be a ground for review. Apart from the above, no other
sufficient reason could be assigned by learned counsel to compel this Court to
exercise the power of review.
Accordingly, this review petition being devoid of any substance is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
bj/-
