[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohanlal vs Ganpatlal on 6 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:272
1 RP-2319-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
REVIEW PETITION No. 2319 of 2025
SOHANLAL
Versus
GANPATLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.A. Katkani, learned counsel for the respondent [R-4].
Reserved on : 10.12.2025
Pronounced on : 06.01.2026
ORDER
Heard.
2) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") seeking review of the
order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.1931/2023
(Sohanlal Vs. Ganpatlal and Others), whereby Miscellaneous Petition filed
by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, District Ratlam in Case No. 249-A/2017, has been
dismissed.
3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Petition No. 1931/2025 before this Court
challenging the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Trial Court wherein an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:272
2 RP-2319-2025
application under Section 135 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and this
Court vide impugned order dated 18.11.2025, dismissed the miscellaneous
petition. It is also submitted that in the Miscellaneous Petition this Court did
not consider the actual facts narrated in the application. It is further
submitted that the enforcement application filed by the respondent is
expressly confined to the execution of a mandatory injunction, as is evident
from their own pleading wherein it was stated that the lanterns and beam
placed in the disputed street would be removed within a period of two
months. This clearly demonstrates that no enforcement of a perpetual
injunction was ever sought. Despite this, the matter has been erroneously
treated as one under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC for enforcement of a
permanent injunction, whereas application was filed under Order XXI Rule
11 of CPC and is governed by Article 135 of the Limitation Act rendering it
time-barred. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this
review petition by modifying the impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed in
M.P. No.1931/2023.
4) He has also drawn attention of this Court towards 1982 MPWN
Note 352, 2006 MPWN Part III Note 16 , and Jineshwari Devi v.
Durgeshwari alias Pilabai.
5) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and
prays for its dismissal.
6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
order as well as 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 :-
"13) In view of the foregoing discussion, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:272
3 RP-2319-2025
crystal clear that the petitioner is having right
of access in the land in question without any
obstructions and plaintiff got legal right.
Hence, when a decree for mandatory and
prohibitory injunction are passed, decree for
permanent injunction could be executed
though execution of mandatory injunction
could be barred.
14) In the upshot of the aforesaid
deliberations in entirety, the petitioner has no
case that part of permanent injunction is
barred by limitation. The findings of learned
trial Court do not warrant any interference
and therefore, the impugned order dated
08.02.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division, District Ratlam in Execution Case
No. 249-A/2017 is hereby affirmed.
Consequently, present petition stands
dismissed."
8) Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is also worth to be quoted 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:272
4 RP-2319-2025
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 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' in Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:272
5 RP-2319-2025
11) The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of Civil
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
18.11.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1931/2025 is devoid of
merits and accordingly, dismissed.
14) However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application
before the Trial Court to raise his objections with regard to the paragraphs 13
of the impugned order.
15) In consequence whereof, this review petition is dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
