[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Saleem (Decd.) Through Lrs ... vs State Of M P on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
1 RP-1670-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
REVIEW PETITION No. 1670 of 2025
ABDUL SALEEM (DECD.) THROUGH LRS RUKAIYA BI AND
OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somesh Gobhuj - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Prashant Jain- GA for the State.
(Heard on 21.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 24.03.2026)
ORDER
IA No.12884/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 206
days in preferring the review petition is allowed and the delay is condoned
for the reasons mentioned in the application.
2. IA No.12474/2025 is an application preferred for ignoring the
defects is allowed and the defects pointed out by the office is ignored.
3. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 seeking review of order dated 15.01.2025 passed in
Second Appeal No.1406/2020 for restoration on its original number for re-
hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
2 RP-1670-2025
4. Facts of the case in brief are that:- Abdul Salim and Abdul Rahim
filed a civil suit on 01.09.2010 before the II Civil Judge, Class-II Shajapur
impleading the defendant as State of M.P. through Collector, Shajapur &
Shree Hanuman Mahadev Temple for declaration of title and permanent
injunction regarding agricultural land of survey no.110, area 0.334 situated at
village Dasipura, Tahsil and district Shajapur on the ground that suit land is
under the ownership of appellant but alleging that possession has been
recorded in the name of Shree Hanuman Mahadev Mandir. The Civil Suit
registered as Civil Suit No.85-A/2010 was dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 29.09.2011. Thereafter, Abdul Salim and Abdul Rahim
preferred an appeal which was registered as regular appeal No.2A/2012 and
vide decree and judgment dated 11.12.2013 by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Shajapur the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter second appeal was
preferred on 21.10.2020 by legal heirs of appellants Abdul Salim making
statement that Abdul Salim died on 08.11.2019 alongwith Abdul Rahim who
was appellant no.2 before the appellate court and plaintiff No.2 before the
trial court. The second appeal was filed alongwith IA No.32540/2020 which
is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation
of delay of 6 years and 8 months in filing the second appeal. Challenging the
judgment dated 11.09.2013 in regular appeal No.2A/2012 by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur. This court recorded the finding that
appeal is filed with a delay of 2193 days i.e. 6 years and 3 days instead of 6
years and 8 months and this court dismissed IA No.32540/2020 recording the
finding that reasons for delay of 6 years and 3 days does not falls under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
3 RP-1670-2025
category of 'sufficient cause' and also dismissed the second appeal. The
relevant para-8 and 9 are reproduced below:-
" 8. The documents listed in the index at serial no.8 to 20 and
available at page no.27 to 46 relate to Abdul Rahim whereas
documents listed at serial no.21 only relate to Abdul Salim. The
documents at serial no.21 and available at page no.47 to 51 is
related to 06.11.2019 only. Now we are considering the
sufficiency of cause of delay in the light of Mool Chandra vs.
Union of India and another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 relied by
the appellants. The relevant portion of para-20 is being
reproduced as under:
"No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts
belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be
considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it
is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be
examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four
corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay
same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is
insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be
condoned."
9. It is not the case that Abdul Salim to whom it is stated
that he was prosecuting the case, was not aware about the
judgment of the first appellate Court. Abdul Salim was alive for a
period of 5 years and 11 months after the judgment of the first
appellate court. Para-4 of the application is to the effect that
Abdul Salim was visiting frequently at Indore regarding his
treatment. Unawareness of Abdul Rahim regarding the judgment
is not believable. The reasons for delay of six years 3 days do not
fall within the four categories of "sufficient cause", therefore, the
delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.3240/2020 is
rejected. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed."
5. This review petition have been preferred on the ground that this
court has not considered the merits of the case and only dismissed the second
appeal for the delay of 6 years whereas the appellants are in possession of
the property for more than 50 years and purchased it by a registered sale
deed. The court ought to have allowed the application for condonation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
4 RP-1670-2025
delay by imposing cost upon the appellant. The finding recorded in para-9 of
the application regarding awareness of the of the Abdul Rahim is contrary to
the documents available with the record. The appellant is the owner of survey
no.110, total area 0.334 but the respondents authorities is claiming survey
no.119 meaning thereby the survey no.119 belongs to the appellant. He is
possession holder of suvery No.110. Abdul Salim died on 08.11.2019 due to
kidney ailments and he was the only persons who is taking care of the
litigation at every stage of the case and this court has not recorded any
finding to this fact and this error is apparent on the face of the record. Abdul
Rahim was also heart patient and has filed all the continuous documents to
show his treatment. Accordingly the finding of the court is contrary to the
records. They relied on Inder Singh Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2025 SC 301.
6. Heard.
7. Now, we are considering the scope of review:-
The scope of review before this Court is limited to the extent of
ground available under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC which is reproduced
below for ready reference and convenience:-
Order XLVII
1. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
5 RP-1670-2025
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a 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
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 applied 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.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , has laid down the following
principles ''when review will be maintainable'':-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
6 RP-1670-2025
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
9. Similarly, in the matter of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs.
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has laid down the following principles ''when review will not be
maintainable'':-
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of order,undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
7 RP-1670-2025
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at
the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
10. In the matter of Board of Control of Cricket India vs. Netaji
Cricket Club (AIR 2005 SC 592 ), it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that the words "sufficient reason"occurring in Rule 1 of Order 47 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 the matter of
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 the matter of Akhilesh Yadav
Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. (2013 AIR SCW 1316 ), the Hon'ble
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 fact 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 review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is
circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
8 RP-1670-2025
brought before the Court by the review petitioner. It is also well settled that
only error apparent on the face of record is liable to be reviewed and such
error must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary
to pin-point the error. (See:Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea
Company Pvt.Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal 316).
12. It is well-settled principle of law that in the guise of review,
rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review, it has to be
demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record.
The Court while deciding the application for review cannot sit in appeal over
the judgment or decree passed by it. The review petitioner cannot be given
liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise
where the judgment/order is to be considered on merits.[See: J.R.
Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC1681), S. Bagirathi Ammal v.
Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West
Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ].
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the matter of State Of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or
error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail
examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review
cannot partake the category of the appeal."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Dev
Upadhyaya(supra) in paragraph-15 has held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7964
9 RP-1670-2025
"15. From the above, it is evident that a power of review
cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be
such an error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn process
of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
be two opinions."
15. When the principles is that erroneous view of law is not a ground
for review and review cannot take the category of the appeal, referring
o f Indra Singh (Supra) does not make out a ground for review. There is no
error apparent on the face of record. Hence, this review petition is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
