[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Krishna Sharma vs Tatya Tope Bal Kalyan Samiti Through Its ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31988
1 MCC-4509-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 9 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 4509 of 2025
RAJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA
Versus
TATYA TOPE BAL KALYAN SAMITI THROUGH ITS TREASURER
SHRI RAJESH GOYAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
This application has been filed for restoration of review petition
No.337/2023, which was dismissed on 20/04/2023 on the ground that the
civil suit itself has been dismissed.
2. Heard on I.A.No.9460/2025, which was earlier registered as
I.A.No.2151/2025, for condonation of delay.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that in the pending civil suit,
an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed. A report of local
Commissioner was also received, and it was found that respondents have
encroached upon the land of applicant.
4. Being aggrieved by order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.,
respondents preferred a miscellaneous petition, which was allowed and the
order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was set aside. As a
consequence thereof, report submitted by local Commissioner was also
automatically got wiped out. Thereafter, applicant filed a review petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31988
2 MCC-4509-2025
No.337/2023. During the pendency of this review petition, the civil suit itself
was dismissed. On 20/04/2023, review petition was dismissed on the basis of
a statement made by counsel for respondents that civil suit has been
dismissed.
5. Applicant has also filed a copy of judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court, according to which civil suit was dismissed on 11/04/2023.
Thereafter, it appears that applicant preferred first appeal which too has been
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 26/10/2024. Later on, applicant
filed an application in the disposed of review petition on 06/02/2025 for
recall of order and thereafter, a review petition was filed on 24/02/2025. By
order dated 28/11/2025, review petition was permitted to be converted into
MCC on an application filed by applicant.
6. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on account of dismissal
of review, Courts below have not considered the report given by the local
Commissioner, therefore, applicant has suffered material irreparable loss.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.
8. In order to understand the controversy, chronology of events can be
summarised as under:-
(i) On 11/04/2023, civil suit was dismissed.
(ii) On 20/04/2023, review was dismissed on the ground of
dismissal of civil suit.
(iii) On 26/10/2024, first appeal against judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court was dismissed.
(iv) On 06/02/2025, an application for review of order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31988
3 MCC-4509-2025
20/04/2023 was filed.
9. Once, order dated 20/04/2023 was passed, the consequences were
known to everybody, but in spite of that applicant took a chance before the
Appellate Court. This conduct of applicant clearly shows that he deliberately
did not approach this Court for review/restoration of review petition within
the period of limitation. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that
no case is made out for condonation of delay.
10. Even otherwise, applicant in his I.A.No.9460/2025 which was
originally registered as I.A.No.2151/2025 has also not explained the reasons
for not approaching this Court within the stipulated period. Accordingly, no
case is made out for condonation of delay in filing this application for recall
of order dated 20/04/2023 passed in R.P.No.337/2023.
11. As a consequence thereof, this application for recall is also hereby
dismissed as barred by time.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
