Madhya Pradesh High Court
Secl Through Its Chief Managing ... vs Fari Lal @ Dasrat Singh Gond on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4104
1 RP-1458-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1458 of 2024
SECL THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Versus
FARI LAL @ DASRAT SINGH GOND
Appearance:
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shri K.K. Pandey - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed this review petition seeking recall of order
dated 29.08.2024 passed in W.P. No.24593 of 2024 (Farilal @ Dasrath Singh
Vs. SECL and others) whereby the petition was disposed of with the
following observation:-
"3. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the petition is disposed of with a direction that if the said
judgment and decree has not been assailed further then
petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the said judgment
and decree. It is obligatory for the respondents to give
consequential benefits to the petitioner in pursuance of the
judgment and decree. If the said judgment and decree is set
aside or stayed by any of the higher forum, the same be
conveyed to the petitioner and reason for not granting the
benefit be also communicated to him. The aforesaid exercise
shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 60
days from submitting copy of this order."
3. However, in the review petition, the counsel for the petitioners has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4104
2 RP-1458-2024
pointed out that certain material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner
(present respondent) while filing the petition i.e. W.P. No.24593 of 2024.
She has submitted that one of the petitions i.e. W.P. No.6883 of 2017 (Fari
Lal Vs. S.E.C.L. and others) was also filed by the present respondent seeking
same relief which have been claimed in W.P. No.24593 of 2024 and that
petition is pending for final adjudication, but the present respondent
suppressing the material fact of pendency of the said petition has filed this
second petition and accordingly, the order passed by this Court has been
obtained by the present respondent by suppressing material fact. She has also
pointed out that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the civil Court
has already been assailed before this Court in a second appeal i.e. S.A.
No.2743 of 2023 and that appeal is also pending before this Court and this
fact has also been suppressed by the counsel for the petitioner (present
respondent) while filing the second petition i.e. W.P. No.24593 of 2024.
Therefore, she has submitted that the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in W.P.
No.24593 of 2024 may be recalled and the petition filed by the petitioner
(present respondent) be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material
fact.
4. Shri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
submitted that with regard to another petition i.e. W.P. No.6883 of 2017, fact
has not been mentioned in the petition because the petitioner has taken away
the brief from him, therefore, under some misconception, he could not
mention the said fact before this Court.
5. However, I am not satisfied with the submissions made by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4104
3 RP-1458-2024
counsel for the respondent for the reason that in earlier petition, he was the
counsel and suppressing this fact by the same counsel, who filed the present
petition i.e. W.P. No.24593 of 2024 and reason for forgetting that fact is not
acceptable. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioner (present respondent)
suffers from suppression of material fact and even otherwise the second
petition of same nature cannot be filed when the earlier one is pending.
Therefore, the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in W.P. No.24593 of 2024
(Farilal @ Dasrath Singh Vs. SECL and others) is hereby recalled
deprecating the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner (present respondent)
and as such, the review petition is allowed.
6. The record of W.P. No.24593 of 2024 is also before this Court and
after perusal of the same, I am of the opinion that the petition is not
maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed as suffers from suppression of
material fact and is also not tenable in view of the pendency of earlier
petition i.e. W.P. No.6883 of 2017 containing same relief.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is allowed and
the writ petition i.e. W.P. No.24593 of 2024 filed by the petitioner (present
respondent) is hereby dismissed as suffers from suppression of material
fact.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
