Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita Sharma vs Muralilal Sharma on 28 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19700
1 RP-339-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 339 of 2025
SMT. SUNITA SHARMA
Versus
MURALILAL SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Gaor, learned counsel appears through V.C. and
Ms. Surbhi Shimpi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Dr. Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of
judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 passed in First Appeal No. 587/2007
whereby First Appeal filed by appellant-husband has been allowed and
decree of divorce has been granted against the petitioner.
02. All the grounds taken in Review Petition has been considered
while passing the impugned judgment. The grounds taken by the petitioner
suggest that other view was also possible whereby different conclusion could
have been arrived at, but these grounds cannot be raised in Review Petition
which is governed by the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114
of CPC. The error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19700
2 RP-339-2025
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face
of the record and it is beyond the scope of review. It is apt to refer the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arundev Upadhyay vs.
Integrated Sales Service Limited 2023, (8) SCC 11 which runs as under:-
"31. Another case which may be briefly dealt with is
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , where, this Court ruled that
under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review.It also observed that a review petition
cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal in
disguise.
32. A series of decisions may also be referred to
wherein, it has been held that power to review may not
be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous
on merits as the same would be the domain of the court
of appeal. Power of review should not be confused with
appellate powers as the appellate power can correct all
manners of errors committed by the subordinate courts.
The following judgments may be referred:
(1) Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab
(2) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma
(3) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
(4) Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.
33. Recently, this Court in a judgment dated 24-2- 2023
passed in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan [S.
Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC
515 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185], observed that even
though a judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous,
the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of
powers under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. Further, in Perry
Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra [Perry Kansagra v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19700
3 RP-339-2025
Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] , this
Court observed that while exercising the review
jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1
read with Section 114 CPC, the review court does not
sit in appeal over its own order.
34. In another case between Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd.
v. Assam SEB [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam
SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 788] ,
this Court observed that scope of review under Order 47
Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC is limited and under
the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to reagitate and reargue questions which have already
been addressed and decided. It was further observed that
an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected
by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of record.
35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review
cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47
Rule 1CPC. An error on the face of record must be such
an error which, mere looking at the record should strike
and it should not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be
two opinions."
03. Apart this, the petition is also barred by limitation of 114 days for
which no sufficient reasons has been assigned. In the light of the aforesaid,
we are of the considered view that the petition is devoid of any substance,
fails and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, IA No.4705/2025 for
condonation of delay also stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
