Satyendra Dubey vs Smt. Anita Dubey
2024 Latest Caselaw 14000 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satyendra Dubey vs Smt. Anita Dubey on 13 May, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                                      1




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                     AT J A B A L P U R
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                               ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2024

                                           REVIEW PETITION No. 504 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SATYENDRA      DUBEY     S/O    LATE
                                AMBIKESHWAR DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 67
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
                                H.NO. 2469, WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR,
                                TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    ARVIND DUBEY S/O LATE AMBIKESHWAR
                                DUBEY,    AGED   ABOUT    72   YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O H.NO. 2469,
                                WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND
                                DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    PRATEEK DUBEY S/O LATE SHRI MARTEND
                                DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O H.NO.
                                2469, WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND
                                DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH),

                                                                                 .....APPLICANTS
                          (BY SHRI RAM BABU DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          SMT. ANITA DUBEY W/O RAJENDRA DUBEY, AGED
                          ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O 406, ARNIKA RESIDENCY, 48
                          GWARIGHAT ROAD, JABALPUR TEHSIL AND
                          DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENT


                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed

                          the following:



Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 13-May-24
6:45:23 PM
                                                         2




                                                            ORDER

This review application under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been filed

seeking following relief:-

In view of the above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to recall the impugned order and pass order in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the Supreme Court in

the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) Vs. Union of India

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 has held that the provisions of Order 17 Rule

1 of CPC should be exercised sympathetically because there may be certain

circumstances beyond the control of a party such as serious ailment, accident or Act of God like earthquake, Tsunami. It is further submitted that

the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Chandra

Govindji (Km) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 has held that past conduct of petitioner was not required to be re-examined where a reasonable ground

exists on the date of adjournment.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicants.

4. It is well established principle of law that this Court in exercise of

power under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC cannot re-open its order on merits.

Furthermore, both the judgments were not cited and argued by the applicants at the time when petition was disposed of. Furthermore,

petitioners had sought time only on the ground that Bhagwat Katha is going

to begin. That cannot be a ground to adjourn the case specifically when on

the last seven occasions, defendants/ petitioners had already sought

adjournment.

5. Since the ground on which petitioners had sought adjournment was not

found satisfactory coupled with the previous conduct of the petitioners, this

Court has come to the conclusion that no error apparent on face of record

could be pointed out by counsel for applicants.

6. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M.