Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdas Gurjar vs Shiva Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14567
1 RP-936-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15 th OF JULY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 936 of 2024
RAMDAS GURJAR AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVA GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT THROUGH
PRESIDENT VINOD SINGH PAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Anand V. Bhardwaj - Advocate for appellants.
Mr. Prashant Sharma - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 3 / State.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2024
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 1415/2024.
2. Since the Hon'ble Judge, who has passed the order under review, has
demitted his Office, therefore, this review petition has been listed before this
Court.
3. A solitary ground was raised by counsel for appellants that while
dismissing the second appeal in limine, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not
assigned any reason, and thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record.
4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. This Court by order passed in the case of Smt. Manjeet Bhalla and others
Vs. The State of M.P. and others in Review Petition No.1365/2024 on 13.03.2025
has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14567
2 RP-936-2024
"10. So far as non-assignment of reasons is concerned, the Supreme Court
in the case Hasmat Ali Vs. Amina Bibi and Others reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1142 has held as under:-
14. In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of
law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal.
However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not
involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the
reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the
adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not
accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of mind
even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our view,
the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without
assigning any reasons for its conclusion.
15. In Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan, this Court has laid down
that for dismissal of a second appeal without being admitted, the High
Court is required to assign reasons. It was held thus:
"29. The scheme of Section 100 is that once the High Court is
satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law,
such question shall have to be framed under sub-section (4) of
Section 100. It is the framing of the question which empowers
the High Court to finally decide the appeal in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under sub-section (5). Both the
requirements prescribed in sub-sections (4) and (5) are,
therefore, mandatory and have to be followed in the manner
prescribed therein. Indeed, as mentioned supra, the jurisdiction
to decide the second appeal finally arises only after the
substantial question of law is framed under sub-section (4).
There may be a case and indeed there are cases where even
after framing a substantial question of law, the same can be
answered against the appellant. It is, however, done only after
hearing the respondents under sub- section (5).
30.If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the
appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not
involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is
liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the
respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that
the appeal does not involve nay substantial question of law
within the meaning of sub-section (4). It is needless to say that
for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to
assign the reasons in support of its conclusion."
11. Thus, it is clear that if the High Court is of the view that second appeal
does not involve substantial question of law, then it has to assign the
reason so that the parties losing the case must know that why it has
suffered an adverse order."
7. Therefore, it is clear that if High Court is of the view that second appeal
does not involve substantial question of law, then same cannot be done by passing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14567
3 RP-936-2024
a single line order "that in the considered opinion of this Court that no substantial
question of law arises."
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court by dismissing the appeal in limine
by order dated 21.03.2022 had observed as under:-
"After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the entire gamut of the matter is in the
realm of facts. The findings as recorded by the Trial Court and modified by
the First Appellate Court to the extent indicated herein above are pure
findings of the facts, which do not warrant any interference under Section
100 of C.P.C. No question of law much less the substantial question of law
arising in this appeal. Admission declined."
9. Initial part of order speaks about facts of the case. From plain reading of
the order under review, it is clear that no reasons have been assigned and
therefore, counsel for applicants is correct in submitting that non-assigning the
reasons has resulted in error apparent on the face of record.
10. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed. Order dated 23.07.2024
passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.1415/2024 is
hereby recalled.
11. List Second Appeal No.1415/2024 in the first week of August, 2025
for hearing on admission.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
