Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subodh Chandra Mandal (Died) Through ... vs Nagar Parishad Banmore on 24 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
1 RP-670-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 670 of 2025
SUBODH CHANDRA MANDAL (DIED) THROUGH LRS (I) SMT
KALPANA MANDAL AND OTHERS
Versus
NAGAR PARISHAD BANMORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
1. There is a delay of five months in filing this Review Petition and
condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A.No.2989/2025.
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 16.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.7887 of 2013.
4. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following manner:
"6. The provision of Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of CPC deals with
the application for discovery of the document as well as
production of the documents which is reproduced hereinbelow:
12. Application for discovery of documents: - Any party
may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an
order directing any other party to any suit to make
discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been
in his possession or power, relating to any matter in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
2 RP-670-2025
question therein. On the hearing of such application the
Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that
such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that
stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or
limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its
discretion be thought fit:
Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so
far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary
either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
14. Production of documents.- It shall be lawful for the
Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit,
to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of
such of the documents in his possession or power, relating
to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall
think right; and the Court may deal with such documents,
when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.
7. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.8.2013 has
observed that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff originally
against the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No.2 for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of shop
No. 20 situated at Station Road Ward No.10 of Banmore
Pargana, District Morena, in which after the order of the court,
defendant No.4 and 5 have been added. Written statement has
been filed in the case on behalf of the defendants 4 and 5. But no
counter claim has been made and therefore, the learned Trial
Court held that the entire burden of proving his claim lies on the
plaintiff and the defendants can not be forced to present evidence
in this regard. Otherwise also it has been clarified by the
defendants no.4 and 5 in their reply that they have presented the
certified copy of the disputed tenancy register in the case and the
original record is in the possession of Nagar Parishad, Banmore.
Thus, when the document sought are already on record, further
insistence to produce the original is of no consequence. the
learned Trial Court had rejected the application which according
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
3 RP-670-2025
to this Court cannot be faulted. This Court thus hold that the
Trial Court had not committed any error in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and impugned order
has been in sound exercise of its jurisdiction of learned Trial
Court, therefore, no interference in the same is warranted.
8. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of substance and is hereby
dismissed."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
4 RP-670-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
5 RP-670-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12584
6 RP-670-2025
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 16.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.7887 of 2013 is made out.
Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
