Madhya Pradesh High Court
Usha Kiran Saxena vs Dinesh Saena on 6 March, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 965 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
USHA KIRAN SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI BHAJANLAL
SAXENA D/O LATE SHRI BAIJNATH PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O
BHASKAR LANE JAYENDRAGANJ LASHKAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DINESH SAXENA
2. RAJENDRA SAXENA
BOTH S/O LATE SHRI BAIJNATH SAXENA
3. JYOTI SAXENA W/O LATE SATISH SAXENA
4. SWATI SAXENA D/O LATE SHRI SATISH SAXENA
5. SAKSHAM SAXENA S/O LATE SHRI SATISH
SAXENA
6. SUYASH SAXENA S/O LATE SHRI SATISH SAXENA
ALL R/O NEAR SHANI DEV TEMPLE TARAGANJ
LASHKAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. MRS. LACHHOBAI W/O LATE SHRI NANDRAM
8. MOHAN SINGH (DELETED)
9. DAYARAM SINGH
10. LALCHAND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 13-03-2024
10:25:37 AM
2
11. NARAYAN SINGH
RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 11 ALL S/O LATE SHRI
NANDRAM
ALL R/O- LAXMIGANJ, CREMATION GROUND
ROAD, AMAND KA PURA, LASHKAR, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SMT. GYASO BAI W/O SHRI NATHU SINGH D/O
LATE SHRI NANDRAM, R/O NAKA
CHANDRABADNI BEHIND G.R. MEDICAL
COLLEGE GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SMT. KALLO BAI W/O RAMSWAROOP D/O LATE
SHRI NANDRAM R/O NEAR SHARMA FARM
CHHATRI AND GANESH COLONY, RANIPURA,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SMT. KHARGOBAI W/O RAMESH CHANDRA D/O
LATE SHRI NANDRAM R/O KASHIPURA MORAR
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. SMT. SUNITA BAI W/O GAURI SHANKAR D/O LATE
SHRI NANDRAM, R/O HORSE GRAIN SHOP,
GHOSIPURA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
16. BHAGIRATH S/O LT KASHIRAM (DELETED)
17. BABU S/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAM
18. MUNNI D/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAM
19. JASHODABAI W/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAM
ALL R/O HARKOTA BAGH SHAKRAJI LAXMIGANJ
LASHKAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
20. RUKMANIBAI W/O LT KASHIPRASAD (DELETED)
21. SMT. KALAWATI KUSHWAH W/O LATE SHRI
MOHAN SINGH SIKARWAR
22. VIJAY SINGH KUSHWAH
23. KARAN SINGH KUSHWAH
24. RATAN SINGH KUSHWAH
Signature Not Verified
25. MAHARAJ SINGH KUSHWAH
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 13-03-2024
10:25:37 AM
3
26. DHARMENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH
ALL S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SINGH SIKARWAR
ALL R/O LAXMIGANJ LASHKAR, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI S.D.SINGH-
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6)
(BY SHRI ARMAN ALI- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.7, 9 TO 12, 21
TO 26)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the legal representative of deceased respondent/plaintiff
Ramkali and sister of other plaintiffs/respondents, has preferred this petition
seeking review of the judgment dated 10/05/2018 passed in S.A.No.310/1997.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court has
wrongly held that her brother plaintiffs are nearest survivors of the deceased
Bhumiswami Ajudhya Bai and are covered under Clause XVII of Section 164 of
the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Her independent rights were protected in the
appeal. She was granted liberty to argue for her rights. But in view of the
aforesaid findings of the Court, her rights in the disputed property have been
extinguished. The Clause XVII will not be applicable rather Clause XVI will
come and her father Baijnath was the legal heir of Ajudhiya Bai as he was alive
at the time of her death. The petitioner has inherited the disputed property from
her father along with her brothers. Hence, prayer is made to review the judgment
to the extent of findings recorded in para No.22 of the judgment.
The prayer for review is opposed by the learned counsel on behalf of her
brother plaintiffs/respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has not come forward in the case seeking
any relief or claiming any right title or interest in the disputed property. She was
not a plaintiff in the independent capacity but has come on record as a legal
representative of Ramkali (plaintiff No.1) after her death. The ownership of the
deceased Ramkali over the disputed property was not found by the Court.
There were no pleadings on her behalf or argument on the points regarding the
applicability Clause XVI and not the Clause XVII. The petitioner does not get
any title in the suit property merely by the permission granted by the Court to
argue the case.
It is settled Law that erroneous view of law is not a ground for review
and review cannot partake the category of the appeal. In other words, a review
is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected.
After perusal of the entire record and taking into consideration the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Dev Upadhyay Vs.
Integrated Sales Service Limited and other reported in (2023) 8 SCC 11.
This Court does not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment.
Resultantly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
Pj'S/-
