Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hirdesh Kumar Dwivedi vs Mithlesh Kumar on 1 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4473
1 RP-121-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 121 of 2023
HIRDESH KUMAR DWIVEDI
Versus
MITHLESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Harish Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Parth Dixit
- Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Sharma - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed for recall of judgment dated 29th
of July, 2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.
197/2005.
2. The Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order in question of has
demitted the office, therefore, this petition has been listed before this Court.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in F.A.
No.197/2005, he was respondent No. 1 and his counsel expressed no
instructions and accordingly, by order dated 07.5.2022, SPC was directed to
be issued. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since
petitioner had changed his address, therefore, he could not receive the letters
sent by his counsel and SPC was not served. However, he was proceeded ex-
parte and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed. It is further submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4473
2 RP-121-2023
that application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed for amendment in
the written statement but no notice was issued. Even otherwise, after
allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, Court should
have remanded the matter back.
4. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No. 1 herein preferred
F.A. No. 197/2005 and accordingly, petitioner came to Gwalior along with
his lawyer Shri R.S. Bhatnagar and filed the vakalatanama of Shri V.K.
Bhardwaj. Petitioner is a doctor and is practicing at Karahal, District
Mainpuri and he has property at Karahal. He used to come to Dabra for
looking after his property. He had been taking information of appeal through
his advocate Shri R.S. Bhatnagar. It is his contention that on account of
advance age, his visits to Dabra reduced. It is submitted that although Shri
Bhardwaj might have sent some letter to the petitioner but since he had
changed his address, which was never communicated to Shri Bhardwaj,
therefore, he did not receive any information. However, counsel for the
petitioner also insisted that since the SPC issued by this Court was never
served upon the petitioner therefore, the Court was wrong in proceeding ex-
parte.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. So far as non-communication of information by Shri V.K. Bhardwaj
to the petitioner is concerned, same is misconceived. In paragraph 4 of the
application, it is written by the petitioner himself that he never contacted Shri
Bhardwaj but he was only contacting one Shri R.S. Bhatnagar who is
practicing in Dabra. Why the petitioner was not in contact with his arguing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4473
3 RP-121-2023
lawyer is a matter to be explained by him. It is for the litigant to keep track
of his case and he cannot put the entire burden on the shoulder of his lawyer
specifically when he never contacted Shri Bhardwaj and was all the time
collecting information from local counsel Shri R.S. Bhatnagar. Furthermore,
it is the case of the petitioner himself that he had changed his address and,
therefore, the letter sent by Shri V.K. Bhardwaj could not reach to him. It is
also the case of the petitioner that he never informed Shri Bhardwaj about his
changed address. It is also clear from the cause title that cause title was never
amended and the changed address of the petitioner was never incorporated.
Therefore, under these circumstances, if the SPC could not reach to the
petitioner, then the petitioner is responsible for the same.
7. So far as another contention of counsel for the petitioner that if an
application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written
statement is filed, then opposite party is entitled for fresh notice is concerned,
in the present case, application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment in the written statement was dismissed, therefore, no notice was
required to the petitioner and if the Co-ordinate Bench did not issue fresh
notice to the petitioner, then it cannot be said that any error was committed
by the Co-ordinate Bench requiring review of the order.
8. So far as contention of counsel for the petitioner that after allowing
the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the Co-ordinate Bench
should have remanded the matter back to the trial Court is concerned, same
is misconceived. If the petitioner is of the view that an erroneous order has
been passed, then he has a remedy of assailing the same before the Higher
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4473
4 RP-121-2023
Court. Under the garb of review, this Court cannot reopen the case on merits
specifically when the petitioner himself was negligent in not appearing
before the Court and not contacting his arguing counsel even once and not
responding to the information sent by his arguing counsel.
9. Accordingly, no case is made out for review of order dated 29th of
July, 2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.
197/2005.
10. Review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
