Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Chaturvedi@ Divya Chatruvedi vs Sutikshan Prasad (Dead) Through Legal ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5587
1 RP-129-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 129 of 2025
ASHISH CHATURVEDI@ DIVYA CHATRUVEDI
Versus
SUTIKSHAN PRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
RAMSUFAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated
10.12.2024 passed in Misc. Petition No.6408 of 2023.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Shri Bhoop Narayan
died issueless on 05.06.2019 and the Will dated 13.09.2015 executed in
favour of petitioner came in force. Since the registered Will was lost, mother
of petitioner lodged a report at Police Station on 20.12.2019 and obtained
certified copy on 22.01.2020. Immediately thereafter application for
impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC was filed on 23.01.2020. Shri
Bhoop Narayan died on 05.06.2019 during pendency of the appeal and the
Will came in to force. Since the petitioner was not a party in the Civil Suit
and Civil Appeal, facts of existence of Will could not be incorporated in
plaint and memo of appeal. Order 22 Rule 5, CPC provides that where a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5587
2 RP-129-2025
question arises as to whether any person is or is not legal representative of
deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant such question shall be determined
by the Court. It further provides that where such question arises before the
appellate Court that Court may, before determining the question, direct any
subordinate Court to try the question and returned the record together with
evidence, if any recorded at such trial. He has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (deceased), through
LRs vs. Satya Sai Central Trust & others, (2008) 8 SCC 521. It is further
submitted that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the learned trial Court
should have decided the application filed by applicant under Order 1 Rule 10
of the CPC. Hence, on these grounds he is seeking review of the aforesaid
order.
Per contra, counsels appearing for the other side have vehemently
opposed the prayer and supported the order passed by this Court in Misc.
Petition No.6408 of 2023 and submit that no order reviewing the order
passed in the misc. petition can be passed looking to the fact that well
reasoned and a speaking order has been. No ground for review is made out.
He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan
Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others [2021 (2) M.P.L.J. 472] and
also in the case of Dr. Devendra Gautam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and others (Writ Appeal No.2103/2019), decided on 19.11.2020. It is
submitted that the order is just and proper and does not call for interference
in the review petition.
Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5587
3 RP-129-2025
From the perusal of the record, it is seen that there is no error apparent
on the face of record warranting review of the order. The aforesaid order has
been passed after due consideration of the rival submissions made by the
parties. Hence, no new ground is made out to review the aforesaid order.
However, an attempt has been made to reargue the matter on merits, which is
not permissible under the review jurisdiction.
The law with respect to review is settled by the Supreme Court. The
scope of review is limited as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and
others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479, and S. Bagirathi
Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464
and in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sen Gupta and
another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, therefore, no ground is made out for
review of the order. No glaring irregularity or illegality could be pointed out
by the petitioner in the impugned order. Thus, no interference in the order
could be made in this review petition.
The review petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
