Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Prasad Kol vs Kalavati @ Kalvatiya on 14 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23010
1 RP-452-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 452 of 2024
GANESH PRASAD KOL
Versus
KALAVATI @ KALVATIYA
Appearance:
Shri Shankar PD. Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Reserved on : 09.05.2025
Pronounced on : 14.05.2025
ORDER
This review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has been preferred requesting to
recall/review the order passed on 04.04.2024 in Civil Revision No.384/2017
by this Bench. Under that order, the judgment and decree passed on
27.07.2017 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Birsinghpur Pali, District Umariya, in
Civil Suit No.RCSA 11-A/2014 were set-aside and the civil suit for seeking
the relief of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was
dismissed.
2. Facts admitted for the decision of this review petition are that
Civil Suit No.RCSA 11-A/2014 was filed by petitioner-Ganesh Prasad Kol
(hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
for seeking the possession of disputed property situated in Village Pali, Ward
No.12, Survey No.288/1, Area 544 square feet claiming that this property
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23010
2 RP-452-2024
belonged to him but on 04.09.2013 respondent (hereinafter referred to as
'defendant') forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit was
decreed directing the defendant to immediately handover the possession of
disputed property to the plaintiff. It is also undisputed that a revision petition
was filed by defendant with Civil Revision No.384/2017, which was allowed
vide impugned order dated 04.04.2024 holding that plaintiff is not entitled to
the relief of possession as he has not proved his dispossession within six
months from the date of filing the civil suit.
3. In the original civil suit, plaintiff had submitted that he was in
continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property alongwith his family
members until he borrowed Rs.6,000/- from defendant for the treatment of
his son, who unfortunately expired later. It is claimed that through the aid of
anti-social elements, defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit
property regarding which a report was made by plaintiff to concerned police
station on 04.09.2013 itself, i.e., the date of possession, and the Civil Suit
was filed on 01.10.2013. In this factual backdrop, the date of accrual of
cause of action was mentioned as 04.09.2013 i.e. the date of forcible
dispossession and this part of pleading, according to plaintiff, remained
unchallenged. It is further claimed that no specific averments were made by
defendant regarding her possession from a time prior to 04.09.2013, much
less from the year 2012. It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of
specific pleadings and specific denial, the Court under impugned order dated
04.04.2024 should not have assumed that plaintiff was dispossessed much
prior to 04.09.2013. The burden to prove the date of dispossession was on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23010
3 RP-452-2024
defendant and not upon plaintiff. Arguing on these facts, it is requested to
admit this review petition and take up the matter for further proceedings.
4. Counsel for plaintiff has been heard on the question of admission
and the record has been perused.
5. This review petition primarily rests upon the facts that defendant in
her pleadings has failed to specifically challenge the averments made in
plaint about the date of accrual of cause of action. For this, the pleadings of
parties have been gone through which are available in the scanned record of
lower Court. It is apparent that in para no.8 of plaint, a pleading was made
about the date of accrual of cause of action and the same pleading has been
specifically denied in para no.8 and subsequent paras of the written
statement. Defendant has made further pleadings under the caption of
"specific statement" that no cause of action arose on 04.09.2013 and by
making false averments on this fact, plaintiff is seeking relief in a time
barred suit. Thus, from the perusal of written statement filed on behalf of
defendant, it can be observed that there is no dearth of pleadings therein to
challenge the plaintiff's claim about the date of accrual of cause of action.
Hence, this review petition cannot be admitted on the ground of absence of
specific denial/averments in the pleadings.
6. Surely, it can be successfully argued that defendant has not
disclosed the specific date of dispossession of plaintiff in her pleadings but
initial burden is on plaintiff to prove that the cause of action arose on the date
pleaded by him in the plaint. Unless that initial burden is discharged, no
reverse burden is shifted upon defendant and even if she has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23010
4 RP-452-2024
disclose the date of actual dispossession of plaintiff, this discrepancy would
not itself impair her defence or serve any purpose in favour of plaintiff as he
is supposed to prove his case on its own merits and strength, and not upon
any discrepancy in the defence.
7. Upon examining the order dated 04.04.2024, which is under
challenged here, it is manifest that the documentary evidence placed before
the trial Court has been discussed in details from para no.12 to para no.16
and it has been observed in para no.18 of that order that "in the backdrop of
reliable documentary evidence produced by the defendant, any oral evidence
given by plaintiff, against their contents, is not of much worth, as both the
sides have led oral evidence to prove their contentions, hence rebutted oral
testimony cannot be the basis to arrive at conclusive finding".
8. No submission was made either in review petition or in the oral
arguments submitted before this Court on admission that any apparent error
was committed in understanding and drawing inference on the basis of
documentary evidence. Thus, in the absence of any error in appreciating the
pleadings and evidence, which can be claimed to be apparent on the face of
the record, plaintiff cannot successfully invoke the review jurisdiction of this
Court, which has only a very limited scope as defined in provision of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. From above, it is clear that plaintiff is not claiming discovery of
any new or important piece of evidence for seeking review of the order and it
is established that there exists no error apparent on the face of the order.
Further, no case has been made out here, which would necessitate the review
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23010
5 RP-452-2024
of order passed in civil revision on account of any mistake or for any other
sufficient reason. The only ground raised in this context was absence of
specific denial in pleadings but that too has been found to be bereft of
substance. Therefore, overall, no ground is made out to review the order
dated 04.04.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.384/2017.
10. In view of foregoing discussion, this review petition sustains no
merits even at this stage of admission and, therefore, it is dismissed in
limine.
11. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of Civil Revision
No.384/2017.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
NP
