Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Savita Chavhan on 20 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12402
1 RP-1024-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1024 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SAVITA CHAVHAN
Appearance:
Shri Jitesh Sharma - GA appearing on behalf of petitioner/State.
Shri Ravi Jain - Advocate for the respondent .
ORDER
1. There is a delay of 283 days in filing this Review Petition and
condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A.No.4116/2025.
2. Taking into consideration the circumstances which prevented the
petitioner from filing the Review Petition within a period of limitation, sufficient
cause is made out. Consequently, delay is condoned.
3. The present Review Petition has been filed for reviewing/recalling the
order dated 12.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.18073/2024.
4. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following manner:
"4. Looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the
petitioners which is not opposed by the other side, the petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondent- Collector, District
Gwalior to execute the RRC, dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P/2)
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed
of.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.
7. E-copy/certified copy as per Rules."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12402
2 RP-1024-2025
4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this
Court doesn't find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order herein nor
there is any error apparent on the face of record, which could be pointed out by
the counsel for the petitioner, as no any ground as mentioned under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC has been taken or has been demonstrated in the present petition which
could entail this Court to recall or review the order impugned.
5. It would be profitable to quote Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:-
''1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when
the error apparent on the face of the record or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the
order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply
for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an
appeal by some other party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when,
being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case
on which he applied for the review.
[Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.]"
6. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC specifically lays down that whenever there is
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the exercise
of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him at the time or when the error is apparent on the face of the record
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12402
3 RP-1024-2025
or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed
or order made against him, may apply for a review. No new discovery or
important matter or evidence has been brought on record which even after due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by them at the
time when the order was passed, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record could be pointed out and also no any other sufficient reason was brought
before this Court which would compel this Court to review the order impugned.
7. It is also not the case that there was total misreading of the admitted
material on record, rather, the order is based upon the actual facts, therefore,
according to this Court, the grounds raised manifestly don't come within the
purview of connotation of expression "discovery of new facts" or "error apparent
on the face of record" or such it may be constituted to be founded on any other
sufficient reason, therefore, the present review petition being devoid of any
substance deserves to be dismissed.
8. In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club (AIR 2005
SC 592), it is observed that "the words "sufficient reason" occurring in rule 1 is
wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an
advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the
doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'".
9. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008
(Gau) 161), it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope
of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the review petition
is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath
Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that
scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact
cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12402
4 RP-1024-2025
order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the
record, which has to be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held
that an erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision.
10. The scope of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is
circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code which provides that a review of an
order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of evidence.
11. But in the present case no new and important matter has been brought
before the Court by the petitioners. It is also well settled that only errors apparent
on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such errors must state one in the
face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin point those errors. (See
Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1995
Cal 316).
12. In the light of above citations, it is well settled principle of law that the
scope of review is very limited and there seems to be no error apparent on the face
of record in the impugned order passed by this Court.
13. Consequently, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and taking into
consideration the settled principal of law, no case for reviewing the order dated
12.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.18073/2024 is made out. Accordingly, this
review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
