Smt. Arshi W/O Farhan Sheikh vs Smt. Bismillah Bi
2025 Latest Caselaw 11285 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Arshi W/O Farhan Sheikh vs Smt. Bismillah Bi on 18 November, 2025

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428




                                                              1                              RP-1747-2025
                             IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI


                                               REVIEW PETITION No. 1747 of 2025
                                               SMT. ARSHI W/O FARHAN SHEIKH
                                                           Versus
                                                     SMT. BISMILLAH BI
                          Appearance:
                            Shri Bharti Lakkad - Advocate for the petitioner.
                            None for the respondent.


                                               Heard on              :    09.10.2025

                                               Pronounced on         :    18.11.2025

                                                                  ORDER

Heard.

2) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") seeking review of the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Miscellaneous

Petition No.3564/2025 (Smt. Arshi Vs. Smt. Bismillah Bi), whereby Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore in Case No. 0003/Appeal/2025-26, has been dismissed.

3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent/applicant filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 praying

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

2 RP-1747-2025 for eviction of petitioner/non-applicant from residential property situated at 92, Tanjim Nagar, Khajrana, Indore. The petitioner/non-applicant is daughter-in-law of the respondent/applicant residing in the shared household owned by respondent/applicant. The Learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Juni Indore vide order dated 28/03/2025 (Annexure-P/3) directed petitioner/non- applicant to handover vacant possession of aforesaid property to respondent/applicant. Thereafter, the petitioner/non-applicant preferred an appeal u/s. 16 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 challenging the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Juni Indore. The Learned appellate authority Additional Collector, District- Indore vide order dated 18/06/2025 (Annexure-P/2) has upheld the order passed by SDO Juni Indore holding that

as Farhan, the husband of petitioner/non-applicant has no legal right to live in the house and respondent/applicant has bonafide need therefore petitioner/non-applicant cannot be allowed to reside in the house.

4) Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Misc. Petition No. 3564/2025 before this Court challenging the orders of eviction passed by subordinate revenue authorities and this Court vide impugned order dated 07.09.2025, dismissed the miscellaneous petition by observing that "It has come on record that respondent is residing elsewhere and the house in question is occupied by the petitioner. It is unfortunate to note that petitioner being grand daughter-in-law of the respondent is objecting for the shelter of the respondent, that too in a house gifted by her husband." It has also been contended that the aforesaid finding is a material error apparent on the face of record. From the perusal of the original application (Annexure P//3 of MP

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

3 RP-1747-2025 No. 3564/2025), it reflects that the respondent has been staying in Dhar on her own choice and not because of the petitioner. The house having size of 30 ft. X 50 ft. is not fully occupied by the petitioner. The Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner is second wife of husband Farhan who was brought to Indore by his husband, away from the in-laws. The Court failed to consider the present circumstances of the petitioner & her minor son. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this review petition by modifying the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed in M.P. No.3564/2025.

5) No one is present on behalf of respondent.

6) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and documents available on record.

7) Vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed in M.P. No.3564/2025, this Court has dismissed the petition by observing as under :-

"12. In the instant case, the house in question admittedly belongs to the respondent. It has come on record that respondent is residing elsewhere and the house in question is occupied by the petitioner. It is unfortunate to note that petitioner being grand daughter-in- law of the respondent is objecting for the shelter of the respondent, that too in a house gifted by her husband.

13. So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid Act there is no provision for eviction is concerned, the object of the Act not only includes maintenance, provision for food, clothing, medical assistance and treatment, but it also includes provision for residence and in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

4 RP-1747-2025 present case respondent in her application clearly mentioned that petitioner has also threatened the respondent. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Vanitha (supra) has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh (supra) observing that facts being different, law laid down in the case of S.Vanitha (supra) would not be applicable in the case.

The facts in the present case are almost similar to the case of Ganesh (supra).

14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and overall object of the Act, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore, affirming the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the SDO, Indore.

Accordingly, this petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.

15. At this stage, I find that the order passed by the SDO remained unexecuted till date. As far as the right of the owner is concerned, respondent is the owner of property. She is having full right and for possession of property and she cannot be deprived of her rights. The petitioner is directed to give possession to the owner of the property i.e. the respondent. As per nikahnama, house of husband of the petitioner is situated at Shrinagar, Dhar. As the petitioner is also having a right and share in the property of her husband, she may reside at the house of her husband situated at Dhar."

8) Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC reads as under :-

"47. Application for review of judgment.-

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved, -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

5 RP-1747-2025

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 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 decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error 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 of 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 applies 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

6 RP-1747-2025 decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."

9) The explanation of Order XLVII Rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says 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.

10) 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". 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.

11) The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33428

7 RP-1747-2025 Judicature, is circumscribed by Section 114 of CPC which provides that a review of an order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of evidence. But in the present case no new and important matter has been brought before the Court by the petitioner. It is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed.

12) In the light of above judgments, it is well settled principle of law that the scope of review is very limited. There is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order passed by this Court as all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have already been considered while passing the impugned order.

13) In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled principles of law, the instant petition seeking review of the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3564/2025 is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.

14) In consequence whereof, this review petition is dismissed.

(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE

Vindesh