Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsharan Dwivedi vs Ramyash Dwivedi( Dead) 1A Mst Shayam Bai on 18 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38843
1 RP-487-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 487 of 2024
RAMSHARAN DWIVEDI
Versus
RAMYASH DWIVEDI( DEAD) 1A MST SHAYAM BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
02.04.2024 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.904 of 2017.
2. After carefully examination of the grounds as well as the
arguments raised before this Court, this Court does not find any error
apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of the order.
The grounds which have been taken in the present petition are not a ground
for review. The review can be made only in exceptional circumstances where
there is an error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is
limited as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jain
Studios Ltd. vs Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501; State of
West Bengal vs Kamal Sengupta , (2008) 8 SCC 612; S. Bagirathi Ammal vs
Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and in the case
o f Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and
others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38843
2 RP-487-2024
3. In the case of Jain Studios Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as follows :
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned
counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the
same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had
been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie
which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power
of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to
correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original
matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care,
caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at
the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief
cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in
my opinion, is in the nature of "second innings" which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted.
4. In the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra), it is held as under :
"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error
which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed
examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an
error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of
reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the
purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently
an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous
in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the
court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of
review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
5. Further, in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the
face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other
words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere
error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When
does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the
record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent
that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in
favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38843
3 RP-487-2024
review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be
decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by
reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of
the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has held that " a review petition has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The
error apparent on the face of the record should be such that it would have
affected the final decision of the case." Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smt. S. N. Kansagra reported in (2016) 4 SCC
363] has observed that "a review is not a re-hearing of the original matter and
the Court can only interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the
record."
7. In the present case, the grounds raised in the review petition are
mere re-iteration of the arguments advanced during the hearing of the
original appeal and do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the
record. No glaring irregularity or illegality could be pointed out by the
petitioner in the order passed by this Court. Under these circumstances,
looking to the limited scope of interference, no case is made out for
reviewing the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Court in S.A.No.904 of
2017.
8. The review petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38843
4 RP-487-2024
