Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishan Patel vs Om Prakash Mishra on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
RP-700-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No.700 of 2024
RAMKISHAN PATEL
Versus
OM PRAKASH MISHRA AND OTHERS
................................................................................................................................................
Appearance :
Shri Yuvraj Vaidya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7.
Shri Deepak Sahu - Panel Lawyer for respondents No.2, 3 and 5.
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 03.10.2024
Pronounced on : 21.03.2025
ORDER
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is
seeking review of the order passed by this Court in M.P. No.3083 of
2021 on 16.05.2024. The petitioner is asking this Court to exercise the
power provided under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure.
3. This Court vide the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 decided the
petition i.e. M.P. 3083 of 2021 in which the present petitioner had
sought for quashing of order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Board of
Revenue exercising the power of review and recall of order dated
08.01.2020 passed by the said authority in a revisional jurisdiction. The
RP-700-2024
challenge had been made on the ground that the said authority has
exercised the power illegally as it has not provided any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Although, the said order was assailed before
this Court and this Court after an elaborate discussion passed the order
on 16.05.2024 but again a review petition is being filed mainly on the
ground that the Court has not considered the application i.e. I.A.
No.2678/2024 submitted by the petitioners in a pending petition i.e.
M.P. 3083 in which certain documents were produced by the petitioners
so as to substantiate that the property in question is a trust property and
the Court without considering the said application and the documents
attached therewith has dismissed the petition.
4. The review is being sought for on the ground that the application
and the documents filed therewith be again considered and several other
grounds raised in the review petition for recalling of the impugned
order.
5. I have heard the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the review petition and the grounds raised
therein.
6. So far as the application submitted by the petitioner i.e. IA
No.2678/2024 and the documents filed along with the same are
concerned, those were not part of the petition and, therefore, if at all
those are not considered by the Court, the same would not affect the
order for the reason that whatever pleadings made before this Court in
the petition and the documents attached therewith had been taken into
account. Even otherwise, as per the submissions made by counsel for the
review petitioner, if the Court had considered those documents, the
RP-700-2024
decision would have been different because the property belongs to the
trust but this submission in view of the observation made in the
impugned order dated 16.05.2024, does not seem to be proper because
the Court after considering the material available on record has opined
that the land in question belongs to the father of respondent No.1, 4 and
7 and husband of respondent No.6. The Court has already considered a
document whereby the title of father of respondent No.1, namely
Vishwanath Dutt has been ascertained and his name has been mutated in
the revenue records. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that
the Court has taken a view that since the judgment and decree passed by
the Civil Court has attained finality, therefore, whatever finding given
therein, cannot be ignored in regard to determining title over the land in
question.
7. Thus, in my opinion, filing a review petition raising grounds
therein is nothing but an attempt made by the petitioner to reopen the
case and to hear it afresh. The scope of review is not so as is being
interpreted by the petitioner. If any finding and observation made by the
Court, according to the party, is erroneous then by way of review
petition, the same can be reopened and fresh hearing is required to be
given but the scope of review as has been prescribed under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC in the present case does not seem to be proper because it
does not fall within the ambit of review as mistake is not apparent on the
face of record. As such, the power of review cannot be exercised.
8. In my opinion, the review petition is misconceived because the
petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate as to why this Court should
exercise the power of review as prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
RP-700-2024
CPC.
9. Therefore, the review petition, being misconceived, is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
