[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Peoples College Of Medical Sciences And ... vs Network 18 Media And Investment Limited ... on 24 February, 2026
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
1 MA-6284-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 6284 of 2025
PEOPLES COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE
(A CONSTITUENT MEDICAL UNIT OF BHANPUR UNIVE
Versus
NETWORK 18 MEDIA AND INVESTMENT LIMITED A COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Sapre - Advocate for respondent no.5 (through VC)
Reserved on : 16.01.2026
Pronounced on: 24.02.2026
ORDER
In this miscellaneous appeal, appellant is assailing the order passed on
24.06.2025 by Second District Judge, Bhopal, in MJC No.324/2025 by which
review petition filed by respondent no. 5, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section
114 CPC, was allowed and it was held that respondent no.5 was wrongly
impleaded as a defendant in the Civil Suit No.583-A/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant had filed the said civil suit (with
plaint of Annexure A-2) for seeking permanent injunction and also for damages to
the tune of rupees one hundred crores for defamatory news item. The civil suit was
originally filed against four defendants, namely respondents no.1-4. It appears that
later an application to implead respondent no.5 as defendant was filed, although
that application is not available on the record of this appellate Court. Application
was replied (Annexure A-3) by respondent no.5, the then proposed defendant,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
2 MA-6284-2025
asserting that no right to sue accrued against it, as the alleged defamatory news
item was broadcasted in the year 2013 and even on the facts canvassed by
appellant, respondent no.5 entered into picture only in the year 2016 after the
alleged taking over of management. This application was allowed vide order dated
26.08.2016 (Annexure A-5) with the direction that respondent no.5 be impleaded
as defendant no.5. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.20817/2016
by respondent no.5, but was later withdrawn with a liberty to seek review of
impugned order before the trial Court itself. After the disposal of Writ Petition on
16.03.2023 (Annexure A-6) , the review petition (Annexure A-7) was filed before
the trial Court. It was opposed by appellant and under the impugned order dated
24.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) the trial Court allowed the review petition.
3. Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of impugned order for the reason that review
of a well-reasoned order passed on 26.08.2016 (Annexure A-5) was not
permissible and the trial Court inappropriately took the notice of the order passed
by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 28.09.2021. Legally
speaking, a review is permissible only on the facts which were in existence when
the order, that is being sought to be reviewed, was passed and a subsequent
decision of a quasi judicial authority can have no bearing on the legal status of the
parties or their liabilities, as a decision thereon was already taken. Further,
appellant-plaintiff, being the dominus litus had a right to implead respondent no.5
as defendant, and this right can not be questioned. It is submitted that the review
order was completely against the legal norms and a request has, therefore, been
made to quash it and restore the original order, dated 26.08.2018 (Annexure A-5) .
4. Respondent no.5 has opposed the appeal and a written reply has also been
submitted by it, for claiming that the impugned order was passed under a well-
defined review jurisdiction and also after considering all material and relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
3 MA-6284-2025
facts of the case. Contesting the merits of this appeal, a request has been made to
dismiss it.
5. Arguments of counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has
been perused. |
6. The impugned order of review is under challenge on the contention that
plaintiff is dominus litis to array any one as a party in his suit, but this contention
applies with qualification. The concept of dominus litis symbolizes that plaintiff is
the controller of the suit, but under the provision of order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the
court may add or remove parties at its own discretion, after ensuring that all the
necessary parties are present for a comprehensive resolution of dispute. Thus, the
choice of plaintiff to add parties is neither absolute nor ultimate. He is under a
legal obligation to satisfy the court that the party whose impleadment he is
seeking, is a necessary party and a cause of action has accrued to him against said
party. In nutshell, the doctrine of dominus litis cannot be exercised in an arbitrary
or capricious manner and it is always open to the objections of opposite party and
subject to the judicial scrutiny.
7. The other contention raised in this appeal is that a review is permissible only
on those facts which were in existence when the order under challenge was passed
but this submission is against the very object and essence of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, which allows review on the ground of discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of petitioner, or could not be produced by him at the time when the
decree or order was passed. This plain reading of provision makes it clear that any
new and important matter or evidence which was not discovered earlier or could
not have been produced at the time of passing the order under review, may be a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
4 MA-6284-2025
valid consideration for review.|
8. If the submission of learned counsel for appellant is modified to contend that
no new ground can be taken in a review petition nor any material or evidence
regarding a new ground can be considered by the review court, then definitely this
Court is in concurrence with him, but this is not the contention here. No new
ground was pleaded for review by respondent no. 5, who had consistently taken
the ground that no cause of action accrued against him to the appellant/plaintiff,
nor any stake or financial liability in the alleged act of tort was contemplated
against him. Exercising jurisdiction under review is completely permissible, if a
ground was already taken when the original order was passed and discovery of
some new and important evidence is made which was not in the knowledge of
petitioner at the earlier stage or came into existence after the order was passed.
9. The other important factor on which an order can be reviewed is, when there
is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. This part of the
provision does not qualify the nature of error. Thus, it may be either of fact or of
law. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,
AIR 1970 SC 1273, the Apex Court discussed the scope of review where some
error or mistake is apparent on the face of record. Its observation is as under:-
"It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers
and the rules of procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the
way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the
court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a
mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for
erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration
shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the court
from rectifying the error. The court went on to hold that it was not
correct to contend the court while exercising its review jurisdiction in
any situation whatsoever cannot take into consideration a subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
5 MA-6284-2025
event".
In the case of Surjit Singh and others vs. Union of India and others (1997)
10 SCC 592, the Apex Court while considering the power of review with the
tribunals held that grace must be shown to correct the mistakes which are apparent
on the face of record in the order under review. Similar principle applies to a court
of law both in moral and legal terms.
10. It has already been discussed that the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC
filed by appellant before the Trial Court for impleading respondent No.5 as
defendant No.5 has not been placed on the record of this Appellate Court. Even
the plaint amended after adding defendant No.5 as a new party is not brought on
the record to show what cause of action was pleaded against said defendant. Thus,
the facts submitted for impleading defendant No. 5 as a party and reliefs claimed
against it are not disclosed to this court. Annexure A-3 is the reply of respondent
no.5 to the application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and para 4 of it questions the
wisdom to implead it as defendant under a vague claim that management of other
defendants has been taken over it. Para 5 claims that application under reply is
casual, laconic and fails to even demonstrate as to how and in what manner the
proposed answering defendant (respondent no. 5) has taken over the management
of defendants. According to this reply, the phrase " taken over the management of
defendants" has no legal connotations and is not indicative of any commercial
relationship between two or more companies. Thus, contending that only a bald
averment was made without substantiating it with any documents, respondent no.
5, in para 6 of reply, questioned its status as a necessary party to the lis and in
para 8 its objection was that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff against the
answering respondent. Respondent no.5, thus, challenged the application on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
6 MA-6284-2025
ground that it was not a party to the commission of the alleged tort, no action was
enforceable against it in a case of damages for torts and no cause of action accrued
against it was pleaded either in the plaint or in the application under reply.
11. From the above summary of reply of respondent no.5 to the application of
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it can be inferred that it was contesting the application on
all possible aspects. Annexure A-5 is the order dated 26-08-2016 deciding the
application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It's a very brief order which is primarily
based on the fact that respondent no.5 could not deny the fact that defendant
company was taken over by it. The court was of the opinion that under this
takeover, respondent No.5 had accrued all profits and losses and also all
contractual liabilities, etc. Holding that respondent No.5 cannot deny its liability
for the act of torts, the court below gave a finding under Annexure A-5 that
respondent No.5 was a necessary party and therefore was directed to be arrayed as
defendant.
12. The analysis of order dated 26-08-2016 clearly reflects that there was no
document before the Court to appreciate the fact and effect of this taking over of
management. It had not material to examine firstly from which date taking over
was effected, secondly how the rights and liabilities under this transition of
management were settled between the respective parties, and thirdly whether the
effect of transfer of management also involved transfer of financial liabilities, both
existing and future. It appears that the order dated 26-08-2016 (Annexure A-5)
was passed in ignorance of all these relevant facts and it was based merely on the
assumptions and conjectures made by the Court. Respondent No.5 was forcefully
asserting that no cause of action was shown to have accrued against him by
appellant/plaintiff but this contention was also ignored conveniently.
13. In commercial world, the incidents of taking over the management or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
7 MA-6284-2025
acquisition of a company have serious implications and therefore parties involved
in these transactions ensure that defined and determinate terms are scripted in the
form of a document so that financial disputes may not surface in future regarding
the respective liabilities of the parties. Similarly, a document involving transfer of
management would also have been here, and it could have demonstrated the terms
under which the management was allegedly taken over by respondent no.5.
However, this most crucial document was not produced for the perusal of Court
below to decide the application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and regretfully the Court
too did not consider it necessary to look into this document. Thus, by adopting a
very superficial approach it allowed the application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
14. Writ petition No. 20817/2016 was filed by respondent no.5 to challenge the
order dated 26-08-2016 (Annexure A-5), but later with a liberty to seek review of
the order, the writ petition was withdrawn and, accordingly, it was dismissed on
16-03-2023. Respondent no.5 thereafter filed the review petition (Annexure A-7)
which was allowed by the impugned order (Annexure A-1) .
15. Admittedly during the pendency of writ petition, an order was passed by
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 618/2019 and under this
order dated 28.09.2021 the appellate tribunal decided the effects of two
agreements namely SUA and ZOCD agreement entered into between IMT and six
other entities controlled by Raghav Bahal on one hand and TV18, NW18 on the
other hand. The order had a finding that there was no effective change in the
control of NW18 as a result of execution of ZOCD agreement and the control of
TV18 as well as NW18 continued with Mr. Raghav Bahal and his entities. The
submissions made by RIL which is respondent no. 5 in the present appeal were
accepted holding that RIL did not have any say in the management affairs of
NW18 and TV18.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
8 MA-6284-2025
16. This order came into existence after the original order dated 26.08.2016
(Annexure A-5) was passed and is a very relevant document to endorse that Trial
Court was in error by holding in its order dated 26.08.2016 that under the
takeover exercise of management, respondent no.5 was charged with all kinds of
liabilities qua respondents no. 1 and 2, namely NW18 and TV18.
17. Facts, in the circumstances of the case, thus, manifest that while passing the
order dated 26-08-2016 (Annexure A-5) , the Trial Court failed to discharge its
duty to examine the corresponding liabilities of parties under any scribbled
document and passed that order only on the basis of assumption. The order of
26.08.2016 was, thus, erroneous on the face of it and this error has become more
obvious in the light of order passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai,
which has defined the liabilities under the alleged takeover.
18. The learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the decision of Apex Court
in the case of AC Estates vs. Sirajuddin & Company and Another, AIR 1966 SC
935. Facts of that case were that the original order was correct when it was passed,
but lost its validity when the dispute between the parties, regarding tenancy, was
decided otherwise by a competent Court. The Apex Court observed in this state of
affair that there can be no review of an order which has lost its validity on account
of some subsequent event. Here the facts are altogether different, as the legality of
order dated 26.08.2016, even on the date it was passed, cannot be vouched
for, hence said legal principle cannot be applied
19. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant is State
of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 8 SCC 612 .
Discussing the review power of administrative tribunals, it was held by Apex
Court that new and important matter or evidence must be of such an impact and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15732
9 MA-6284-2025
effect, that had this discovery been made earlier, it would have altered the
judgment under review. Secondly, the mistake or error must be prima facie visible
on the record and should not require any detailed examination. It was also held
that erroneous view of law is not a ground for review. From the detailed facts
discussed so far, it is evident that the original order dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure
A-5) passed by the Trial Court was erroneous on the face of it as the financial
liability of respondent no.5 was never inquired into and was decided without
examining the document under which it was allegedly created. This makes the
error visible on the face of original order dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure A-5) and
realizing this apparent error the review Court corrected the mistake which was
obvious on the face of record. Thus, it is held that after examining the facts
correctly and by placing reliance upon series of relevant judgments of Apex
Court, holding the field on the powers of review, the impugned order Annexure
A1 was passed on 24.06.2025.
20. This court, consequently, finds no ground, available in this miscellaneous
appeal, which may ridicule the validity of impugned order either on facts or in
law. Hence appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
21. Let a copy of this order along with its record be send back to the trial Court
for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
