Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51034
1 RP-1681-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1681 of 2025
GULAB PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
10.06.2021 passed by this Court W.P.No.10084 of 2021.
2. After carefully examination of the grounds as well as the arguments
raised before this Court, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of
the record that would warrant a review of the order. The grounds which have been
taken in the present petition are not a ground for review. The review can be made
only in exceptional circumstances where there is an error apparent on the face of
record. In the present case, the review has been sought after a period of more than
five years, that too, on the basis of subsequent judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. There is already an order passed in favour of the petitioner and
Proviso to Order 47(1) of the Code does not permit the review of said order on the
basis of the subsequent judgments.
3. Even otherwise, the scope of review is limited as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jain Studios Ltd. vs Shin Satellite Public
Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501; State of West Bengal vs Kamal Sengupta , (2008) 8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51034
2 RP-1681-2025
SCC 612; S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission , (2009) 10
SCC 464 and in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC
479;
3. In the case of Jain Studios Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows :
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned
counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the
same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had
been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie
which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power
of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to
correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original
matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and
circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at
the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief
cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in
my opinion, is in the nature of "second innings" which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted.
4. In the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra), it is held as under :
"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error
which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed
examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an
error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of
reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the
purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently
an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous
in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the
court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of
review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
5. Further, in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the
face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other
words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere
error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51034
3 RP-1681-2025
an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the
record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent
that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in
favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of
review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be
decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by
reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of
the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has held that " a review petition has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The error
apparent on the face of the record should be such that it would have affected the
final decision of the case." Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perry
Kansagra v. Smt. S. N. Kansagra reported in (2016) 4 SCC 363] has observed that
"a review is not a re-hearing of the original matter and the Court can only interfere
if there is an error apparent on the face of the record."
7. In the present case, no glaring irregularity or illegality could be pointed
out by the petitioner in the order passed by this Court. Under these circumstances,
looking to the limited scope of interference, no case is made out for reviewing the
order dated 10.06.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10084 of 2021 after a
period of more than five years.
8. The review petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
