Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampyari vs Sarban on 25 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
1 RP-1017-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1017 of 2024
RAMPYARI AND OTHERS
Versus
SARBAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Naval Kumar Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Saket
Sharma - Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.K.Sharma - Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for
recall of order dated 10-7-2017 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
S.A. No. 538/2008 by which second appeal was disposed of in the light of
mediation report.
2. The Hon'ble Judge, who had passed the order under review, has
demitted his office, therefore, this review petition has been listed before this
Court.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present review petition, in short,
are that a suit was filed by applicants along with their mother, Smt. Bhuri Bai
for declaration of title and possession in respect of land bearing survey Nos.
461 and 271 situated in Village Nohri Khurd, District Shivpuri. The trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
2 RP-1017-2024
Court, i.e., Second Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, decreed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 15-5-2007 passed in Civil Suit No. 61A/2006.
Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
Ghanshyam Singh and Kishan Singh (who is being represented by his legal
representatives) preferred a civil appeal under Section 96 of CPC. By
judgment and decree dated 6-8-2008, First Additional Judge to the Court of
First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, in Regular Civil Appeal No.
12A/2008 allowed the appeal in part. Being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the appellate Court, Second Appeal No. 538/2008 was filed
by Sarban, Phool Singh, Gopal, and Pappu, whereas another Second Appeal
No. 578/2008 was filed by Bhuri Bai and applicants. It is submitted that Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court referred the matter for mediation, but it is the
case of applicants that they were not having knowledge about the mediation
proceedings. They did not receive any notice from the mediator. Applicants
did not appear before the mediator, but the mediator submitted his report on
3-3-2017 to the effect that matter has been settled amicably. However, it is
the case of applicants that they never appeared before the mediator, nor they
gave any consent for the mediation proceedings, as well as mediation report
was also not based on the consent given by applicants. However, by the
order under review, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the second
appeal in the light of mediation report. Applicants were not aware of the said
order. After the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was over, applicants
came to Gwalior and contacted their counsel and requested to show the
progress of the case. Then, it was pointed out by counsel for applicants that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
3 RP-1017-2024
case has been decided by order dated 10-7-2017 on the basis of compromise.
It is submitted that since applicants had not compromised the matter and had
never given any consent for mediation, and also did not give any consent
before the mediator, therefore present review petition has been filed.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that, in fact,
applicants are legal representatives of Bhuri Bai. Bhuri Bai was present and
participated in the mediation proceedings. Furthermore, the applicants
themselves were the appellants and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that they
were not aware of mediation proceedings specifically when their mother
Smt. Bhuri Bai had appeared before mediator. Therefore, it is submitted that
reasons assigned by applicants for review of order dated 10-7-2017 passed
by this Court in S.A. No. 538/2008 is perverse and accordingly, prayed that
review petition may be dismissed.
5. During the course of arguments, a new point has arisen which
requires consideration. In the present case, Second Appeal No. 538/2008 was
not admitted. At pre-admission stage, the matter was referred to mediator,
and judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were modified.
Therefore, a question was put to counsel for parties that whether the High
Court has jurisdiction to modify or reverse the judgment and decree passed
by the court below even at a pre-admission stage or not, and whether the
High Court would assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal only after
formulation of substantial question of law?
6. It is submitted by counsel for respondents that applicants are playing
fraud with the respondents, and therefore, review petition should not be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
4 RP-1017-2024
entertained.
7. When it was requested by the Court to Shri S.K. Sharma, counsel
for respondents, that he should confine his argument to the legal issue raised
by this Court, then it is submitted by Shri Sharma that the judges are never
aware of the financial condition of the parties, whereas advocates are aware
of the same, and since in the present case, Bhuri Bai had entered into a
compromise after taking money from the respondents, therefore, respondents
would suffer irreparable loss in case the order is reviewed.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for respondents.
9. This court was shocked after hearing the submission made by
counsel for respondents. The Courts are never supposed to know the parties
personally, and if a Judge knows the party personally, then it is expected that
he should not hear the matter. Therefore, if the Court is not aware of the
financial position of the party, then the advocate cannot criticize the Court
for not having such information. On the contrary, the Bar must appreciate
that the Courts are deciding the cases without getting impressed by any
aspect other than the legal aspects. Furthermore, the contention of Shri S.K.
Sharma that he had obtained compromise order by influencing Bhuri Bai,
may also be detrimental to the concept of compromise because no such
aspect has been mentioned in compromise decree.
10. Be that whatever it may.
11. Counsel for respondents had argued the matter as per his wishes,
and this Court is only required to consider the submissions made by counsel
for the parties. However, it is made clear that in spite of repeated requests,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
5 RP-1017-2024
counsel for respondents did not argue on the issue as to whether this Court
would assume jurisdiction to reverse or modify the judgment and decree
passed by the appellate Court even at a pre-admission stage or not?
12. Since counsel for respondents was repeatedly insisting upon the
fact that respondents had persuaded Smt. Bhuri Bai to enter into a
compromise after giving certain consideration amount to her, therefore, this
Court was left with no other option but to point out the law laid down by
Supreme Court in the case of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt ,
reported in (2016) 11 SCC 235 .
13. After going through paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 of the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case Raghavendra Swamy Mutt (supra),
it is fairly conceded by counsel for respondents that unless and until the
substantial questions of law are framed, the High Court would not assume
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and unless and until an appeal is
entertained, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court cannot be
modified.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
since, mediation was done at a pre-admission stage and even the mediation
report was accepted, and Judgment and Decree passed by Appellate Court
was modified even prior to admission of second appeal, therefore in the light
of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
(supra), an error has been committed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
relying upon the mediation report at pre-admission stage.
15. Accordingly, order dated 10-7-2017 passed by Co-ordinate Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19266
6 RP-1017-2024
of this Court in Second Appeal No. 538/2008 is hereby recalled. Second
Appeal No. 538/2008 is hereby restored to its original file, and it is directed
that mediation report shall be considered after the parties are heard on the
question of admission.
16. With aforesaid observation, this review petition is finally disposed
of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
