Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramhazoor Dangi vs Mannu Lal Rajak on 8 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17208
1 RP-583-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 583 of 2024
RAMHAZOOR DANGI AND OTHERS
Versus
MANNU LAL RAJAK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep K. Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioners.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2024
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 883/2021.
2. Since the Hon'ble Judge, who has passed the order under review, has
demitted his Office, therefore, this review petition has been listed before this
Court.
3. A solitary ground was raised by counsel for petitioners that while
dismissing the second appeal, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not
assigned any reason, and thus, there is an error apparent on the face of
record.
4. None is present on behalf of respondent No.1 though served.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. This Court by order passed in the case of Smt. Manjeet Bhalla and
others Vs. The State of M.P. and others in Review Petition No.1365/2024 on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17208
2 RP-583-2024
13.03.2025 has held as under:-
"10. So far as non-assignment of reasons is concerned, the Supreme Court
in the case Hasmat Ali Vs. Amina Bibi and Others reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1142 has held as under:-
14. In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of
law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal.
However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not
involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the
reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps
the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were
not accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of
mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our
view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine
without assigning any reasons for its conclusion.
15. In Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan, this Court has laid down
that for dismissal of a second appeal without being admitted, the
High Court is required to assign reasons. It was held thus:
"29. The scheme of Section 100 is that once the High Court is
satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law,
such question shall have to be framed under sub-section (4) of
Section 100. It is the framing of the question which empowers
the High Court to finally decide the appeal in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under sub-section (5). Both the
requirements prescribed in sub-sections (4) and (5) are,
therefore, mandatory and have to be followed in the manner
prescribed therein. Indeed, as mentioned supra, the jurisdiction
to decide the second appeal finally arises only after the
substantial question of law is framed under sub-section (4).
There may be a case and indeed there are cases where even
after framing a substantial question of law, the same can be
answered against the appellant. It is, however, done only after
hearing the respondents under sub- section (5).
30.If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the
appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not
involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is
liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the
respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that
the appeal does not involve nay substantial question of law
within the meaning of sub-section (4). It is needless to say that
for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to
assign the reasons in support of its conclusion."
11. Thus, it is clear that if the High Court is of the view that second appeal
does not involve substantial question of law, then it has to assign the
reason so that the parties losing the case must know that why it has
suffered an adverse order."
7. Therefore, it is clear that if High Court is of the view that second
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17208
3 RP-583-2024
appeal does not involve substantial question of law, then same cannot be
done by passing a single line order that "No question of law, much less
substantial question of law arises in this appeal."
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court by dismissing the appeal by
order dated 01.04.2024 had observed as under:-
"After having perused the judgments of both the Courts
below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of
matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by
both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which
in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any
interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of
law, much less substantial question of law arises in this
appeal. Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed."
9. Initial part of order speaks about facts of the case. From plain
reading of the order under review, it is clear that no reasons have been
assigned and therefore, counsel for petitioners is correct in submitting that
non-assigning the reasons has resulted in error apparent on the face of
record.
10. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed. Order dated
01.04.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal
No.883/2021 is hereby recalled.
11. List Second Appeal No.883/2021 for hearing on admission.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
