Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pihoo@Prashasti vs Smt. Shanti on 8 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17293
1 RP-164-2024
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. 164 of 2024
PIHOO@PRASHASTI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Shakya - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Today the case is listed on the ground that the respondents No.1 and 2 are
not served.
2 . This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. has been filed
seeking review of judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in S.A.No.40/2015.
3. I.A. No. 6565/2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 432 days
in filing this review petition.
4 . It is the case of the petitioners that against the judgment dated
07.12.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.
40/2015, the applicants had filed SLP (Civil) Diary No.10562/2023/SLP (Civil)
No.1271/2024, which was dismissed at the motion stage by order dated
12.01.2024. It is submitted that thereafter the present review petition has been
filed, and because the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court by filing an
SLP against the order under review, therefore, the delay has occurred, and
accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing the review petition may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17293
2 RP-164-2024
condoned.
5. Considered I.A. No. 6565/2024 as well as the review petition on merits.
6. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction mainly on the ground that the owner of the property, namely, Sundara,
had executed a Will in favour of appellants on 23.06.1998, and thus they have
become owners by virtue of the said Will.
7. Both the Courts below, i.e., the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court, held that the Will was not proved by the appellants. Even the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, after considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the
parties in detail, had held that the appellants have failed to prove that the Will was
duly executed by Sundara.
8. Furthermore, it appears that during the pendency of the second appeal, an
application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed by the plaintiff and defendant
No.1- Bhanwari. Bhanwari, who was fighting hard to protect her rights, took a
somersault without there being any obvious reason, but still, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.09.2019, set aside the judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below on the basis of the compromise.
9. However, the State filed a review petition, and the compromise decree
was recalled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
10. After considering the factual aspects as well after considering the fact
that the compromise appears to be suspicious and collusive, the Coordinate Bench
of this Court has refused to draw a compromise decree and has also held that the
Courts below have not committed any mistake in dismissing the suit.
11. So far as the compromise application is concerned, it is suffice to
mention here that whenever a compromise application is filed, then the concerning
Court has jurisdiction and duty to find out as to whether the compromise is proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17293
3 RP-164-2024
or not. If it is found that the compromise appears to be collusive and not in
accordance with law, then the Court can refuse to entertain and accept
compromise application. Thus, it is clear that merely because a compromise
application was filed by the parties, it would not be binding on the Court, and the
Court, after assigning reasons, can refuse to act upon the compromise decree and
can refuse to draw a compromise decree.
1 2 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court has given its reasons for not
accepting the compromise decree.
13. If the petitioners/appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, then they had a remedy of assailing the said order
before the Supreme Court. In fact, the petitioners/appellants had assailed the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary
No.10562/2023, which too has been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order
dated 12.01.2024.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting interference.
15. Accordingly, not only this review petition dismissed on the ground of
limitation, but also on merits, as it is misconceived and has no substance.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
