Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut ... vs M/S Aquatic Pipes And Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13714 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut ... vs M/S Aquatic Pipes And Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ... on 10 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE WA No. 1969 of 2023 (MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN COMPANY CENTRAL DISCOM AND OTHERS Vs M/S AQUATIC PIPES AND TUBES PVT. LTD. THROUGH SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA)

Dated : 10-05-2024 Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the appellants.

Heard on I.A. No.3601/2024, which is an application under Chapter - 2 Rule 30(A) of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 for modification of final order date 20.12.2023, whereby the writ appeal has been disposed of.

02. Earlier also, while dealing with the similar issue in Contempt Appeal

No.02 of 2023 (Dinesh Sharma v/s IDBI Bank Limited) this Court had held that the very purpose to amend Chapter - I of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 of the M.P. High Court Rules was that 'to save lot of time and expenses of advocates, parties as well as of the office particularly when it is not required to scrutinize the interlocutory application as a main case. and it also saves time of the Court. Relevant contents of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:-

"36. The very purpose to amend the Chapter-1 of Sub-Rule(7) of Rule 4 of Rules of 2008 was that "to save lot of time and expenses of advocates, parties as well as of the office particularly when its not required to scrutinize the interlocutory applications as a main case and it also saves time of the Hon'ble Court, moreover, minor typographical errors such as date, name, time etc. could be corrected by filing interlocutory application in a disposed of case and not to review/recall the entire order passed by considering the merits of the case.

37. The amended provision cannot overside the express and substantive provisions of Chapter-2, Rule 11 of Rules of 2008 "Review" as reproduced under :-

11."Review Petition - An application under order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or an application for the review/recall/modification/clarification of [any] [...] order or judgment passed in any proceeding [or an application for enlargement of time] shall be registered as a Review Petition."

38. In the present case, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision/order/judgment cannot be allowed to be reviewed/recalled merely on the basis of an interlocutory application even without considering the question of limitation."

[Emphasis Supplied]

03. In view of the aforesaid, We do not find any reason to entertain the instant application. Accordingly, I.A. No.3601/2024 is rejected with liberty to file a review petition, if so advised.

The present writ appeal shall also be treated as disposed of.

                              (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                    (PRANAY VERMA)
                                       JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                           Ravi