Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kasrawad ... vs Jivraj Gangle on 10 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29703
1 WA-417-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 10 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 417 of 2025
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KASRAWAD THROUGH SECRETARY
AAPSINGH KIRADE
Versus
JIVRAJ GANGLE
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present appeal is filed under section 2(1) OF M.P. UCHCHA
NYAYALAYA (KHANDNYAYA PEETH KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM, 2006
against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in WP NO.2712/2021 and order dated
06.02.2025 passed in RP No.1042/2024.
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raises preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that against the order
dated 28.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.2712/021, a writ
appeal no.1869/2023 was filed by the appellant and the said appeal was withdrawn
on 29.02.2024 without being being any liberty to file either review or fresh
appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he challenged the order passed
by the learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2023 in WA No.1869/2023 but the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29703
2 WA-417-2025
was withdrawn, thereafter, he filed a review petition no.1042/2024 before the
learned Single Judge and the review petition was dismissed by order dated
06.02.2025 and the present appeal is filed against the original order dated
28.07.2023 as well as against the order passed in RP No.1042/2024.
In support of his submission, he argued that the writ appeal would be
maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Khodey Distilleries Limited V. Shri Mahadeshwara Sahakara; (2019 (4) SCC
376), wherein, it has been held that if a special leave petition was dismissed in
limine without giving any reasons, the review petition filed by the appellant in the
High Court would be maintainable and should have been decided on merits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Satheesh VK Vs. The Federal Bank Ltd passed in
Civil Appeal Nos.11752-11753/2025.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that against the
original order passed in the writ petition no.2712/2021 decided on 28.07.2023, the
appellant filed a writ appeal no.1869/2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn on
29.02.2024. The order passed in the writ appeal is as under :-
"After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the appellant seeks
leave of the Court to withdraw the present writ appeal.
Prayer accepted.
Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, accordingly."
Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it is pellucid that the matter was argued
by the learned counsel for the appellant and thereafter he had withdrawn the said
appeal without any liberty to file review petition or fresh writ appeal.
Thus, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in the
case Khodey Distilleries Limited (supra) deals with dismissal of Special Leave to
Appeal in limine, where it has been held that if Special Leave Petition is dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29703
3 WA-417-2025
in limine without giving any reasons, the review petition filed by the appellant in
the High Court would be maintainable as Doctrine of Majority would not apply.
Here in the present case, the statutory right to appeal under the provision of section
2 OF M.P. UCHCHA NYAYALAYA (KHANDNYAYA PEETH KO APPEAL)
ADHINIYAM, 2006 was availed by the appellant and the said appeal after
arguments was withdrawn without liberty to file any review petition or fresh
appeal. The right of appeal cannot be availed after withdrawal of the first appeal as
the same would be against the public policy to ensure finality in the litigation and
to prevent abuse of judicial process.
Para nos.22, 23, 24 in the case of Satheesh VK (supra) are relevant which
are reproduced as under:-
"22. Upadhyay & Co. (supra), which precedes Kunhayammed (supra)
in point of time, is still the law holding the field declaring in no certain
terms that the principle flowing from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC is
also applicable to special leave petitions presented before this Court.
Reading Upadhyay & Co. (supra) together with Sarguja Transport
Service (supra), which had the occasion to deal with a subsequently
filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after
unconditional withdrawal of the first writ petition under the same 13
article, the position in law seems to be this - a second special leave
petition would not be maintainable at the instance of a party, who elects
not to proceed with the challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave
petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a
fresh special leave petition; if such party applies for a review before the
court from whose order the special leave petition was initially carried
and the review fails, then he can neither challenge the order rejecting the
review nor the order of which review was sought.
23. That no appeal lies from an order rejecting a petition for review is
clear from the plain language of Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC. We need
not burden this judgment by referring to any authority on this point.
24. However, the principle underlying Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC
may be understood. Whenever a party aggrieved by a decree or order
seeks a review thereof based on parameters indicated in Section 114
read with Order XLVII, CPC and the application ultimately fails, the
decree or order under review does not suffer any change. It remains
intact. In such an eventuality, there is no merger of the decree or order
under review in the order of rejection of the review because such
rejection does not bring about any alteration or modification of the
decree or order; rather, it results in an affirmance of the decree or order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29703
4 WA-417-2025
Since there is no question of any merger, the party aggrieved by the
rejection of the review petition has to challenge the decree or order, as
the case may be, and not the order of rejection of the review 14 petition.
On the contrary, if the petition for review is allowed and the suit or
proceedings is placed for rehearing, Rule 7(1) permits the party
aggrieved to immediately object to the order allowing the review or in
an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit,
i.e., after rehearing of the matter in dispute."
In the case of Shanker Motiram Nale Vs. Shiolal Singh Gannusingh Rajpur
reported in (1994) 2 SCC 753, the Apex Court held that the appeal against the
High Court order rejecting the review petition is not maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
