Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Nishith Kumar Modi S/O Late Shri Madan … on 23 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
1 RP-216-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23rd OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 216 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NISHITH KUMAR MODI S/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL MODI
AGE YRS R/O PARAKH JI KA BADA, DAULATGANJ, LASHKAR
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Udeniya - Government Advocate for the
petitioners/State.
Shri Varun Kaushik - Advocae for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
For the reasons assigned in I.A.No.1033 of 2025 seeking
condonation of delay of 290 days in filing this review petition, we are of
the considered view that the same constitutes sufficient cause. Hence, the
said IA is allowed. The delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
2. Review of order dated dated 20.03.2024 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.7214 of 2024 is being sought vide present review
petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court observing
as under:
“The crux of petitioner’s grievance is the letter
annexure P-1 dated 12.06.2023. As per the said letter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:125312 RP-216-2025
directions had been issued by the Commissioner to the
Collector to conduct an inquiry and thereafter correct the
entries in the revenue records regarding the lands
mentioned therein, which virtually runs contrary to the
previous order of the respondent no. 2 dated 27.06.1966
by which it was held that the lands in dispute be de-
registered from the muafi records w.e.f. from the year
1935 and it be registered in the revenue records as a
regular revenue paying lands in the bhumiswami rights
of the predecessor’s of the petitioner.
It is undisputed from the records that the land in
question has been recorded in the name of the
predecessors of the petitioner since last more than fifty
years as bhumiswami in the revenue records. The order
dated 27.06.1966 of the respondent no. 2 by which the
land in question was directed to be deregistered from the
maufi record w.e.f. the year 1935 and recorded in the
name of predecessor of the Petitioner in bhumiswami
rights in the revenue record has attained finality in the
absence of any challenge and has also been acted upon
by the respondent by recording the same in the name of
the predecessors of the petitioner in the revenue records.
Even in the order of the Tehsildar dated 29.06.1976Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:125313 RP-216-2025
Annexure P-7 which was passed in a proceeding
pertaining to some interse dispute between the
predecessors of the petitioner and some private parsons,
it is revealed that the land in question was de-registered
from the Muafi records by the order of the respondent
no. 2 dated 27.06.1966. Also, the report of the Tehsildar
Annexure P-14 also finds mention of the order of the
respondent no. 2 dated 29.06.1966 by which the land in
question was directed to be de-registered from the Muafi
record w.e.f. the year 1935 and were directed to be
registered as bhumiswami in the name predecessors of
the Petitioner, as a regular revenue paying land in the
revenue record.
Certainly, by virtue of the order of the respondent
no. 2 dated 27.06.1966 certain status had been
recognized in favour of predecessors of the Petitioner in
relation to the lands in question in the revenue records
which has remained in existence for the last more than
fifty years and thus, it gives rise to a legitimate
expectation to the petitioner that the order of the
respondent no. 2 dated 27.06.1966 will continue to be
given effect to by the Revenue authorities. As a matter of
fact, having acted upon the order of the respondent no. 2Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:125314 RP-216-2025
dated 27.06.1966 the government is estopped from
taking a contrary stand as has been sought to be taken by
the letter dated 12.06.2023 wherein it is observed that as
the land in question is a muafi land. The letter
AnnexureP – 1 dated 12.06.2023 is not simply a
correspondence but is virtually reviewing of the previous
order, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent
no. 2 for want of limitation as well as for want of
sanction under section 51 of MPLRC.
Otherwise, also from the petition it is clear that,
after passing of the order of the Tehsildar dated
29.06.1976 by which the name of proforma respondents
were mutated in the revenue records on the entire lands
as bhumiswami in place of petitioner’s predecessors, a
dispute arose between them which eventually reached the
High Court in two writ petitions bearing No.’s.
1425/2010 and 1428/2010 resp. In the said writ petitions
both the petitioner and the pro forma respondents settled
their dispute by way of compromise which was recorded
by the court vide order dated 07.03.2014 and the revenue
authorities were directed to record names of the parties in
the revenue records in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, being bound by the directions of the HighSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:125315 RP-216-2025
Court the S.D.M vide its order dated 18.02.2019 had
mutated the names of the petitioner and proforma
respondents in the revenue records in respect of the
disputed land, which cannot be faulted with. The revenue
authorities are bound, both by the directions contained in
the order of respondent no. 2 dated 27.06.1966 as well as
the directions contained in the order of the High Court
dated 07.03.2014. But the letter of the respondent no. 2
dated 12.06.2023 runs contrary to the dictate of both the
orders.
Therefore, in the wake of the aforesaid facts and
circumstance this court is of the view that the letter
Annexure P – 1 dated 12.06.2023 is perse illegal, which
deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed and any
action taken pursuant thereto as of date is also held to be
equally illegal and bad in law. The disputed land cannot
be said to be a muafi land as they had already been
deregistered as maufi lands in wake of the order dated
27.06.1966.
Respondents are therefore, directed to give full
effect to the order dated 18/02/2019 passed by S.D.O.,
Gwalior in appeal No.0017/2018-19, which is based on
the orders dated 27.06.1966 earlier passed by theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:125316 RP-216-2025
Commissioner herself whereby the disputed lands
bearing survey no. 183, 187, 482, 483, 485, 487, to 492,
498 to 503 and 524 had been de-registered as the muafi
lands from the record and the orders dated 07.03.2014
passed by the High Court in Wri Petitions No. 1425/2010
and 1428/2010 resp., issued to the revenue authorities
whereby they are directed to record the name of the
Petitioner in the revenue records with regard to the
cerain lands, if not already done.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present petition is allowed and disposed off.”
3. A solitary ground has been raised by the learned Govt.
Advocate for the petitioners/State that without grating any opportunity of
filing reply to the writ petition before the Writ Court, the impugned order
20.03.2024 has been passed which is per se illegal and therefore, the
same deserves to be recalled/reviewed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed
the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioners/State and has prayed
for dismissal of the present review petition alleging that at the time of
passing of final order by the Writ Court, learned Govt. Advocate, had
vehemently opposed the contentions of the respondents/petitioners
therein and the learned Writ Court after hearing counsel for the parties
and perusing the record, had passed the impugned order which doesn’t
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
7 RP-216-2025
warrant any interference. It was thus prayed that the present review
petition being devoid of merits be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision and
deals with the scope of review is required to be quoted and analyzed :-
“Section 114- Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any
personconsidering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or
order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but
from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree
or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code;
or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court
which passed the decree or made the order, and the court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
7. The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment as set out in Order XLVII of the CPC is also required to be
discussed:
“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, (b) by a decree or order
from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision onSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
8 RP-216-2025
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 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 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.]
8. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
9 RP-216-2025
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not
within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him
when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other
sufficient reason.
9. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others
reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Apex Court observed that a review
of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the
material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in
miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations
made are as under:
“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we
resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any
feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard.
But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied
that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh
Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed
:
‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
10 RP-216-2025
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept
in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a
virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has
the normal feature of finality.'”
10. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others
reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self
evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning,
cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the
Court to exercise the powers of review, the Apex Court held as under:
“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have
to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt.
of A.P. reported in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court opined:
‘ 11. What, however, we are now concerned with is
whether the statement in the order of September 1959
that the case did not involve any substantial question of
law is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’. The
fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an
identical state of facts that a substantial question of law
arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier
order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the
statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was anSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
11 RP-216-2025
‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for there is a
distinction which is real, though it might not always be
capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be characterized as
vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting
with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389,
this Court once again held that review proceedings are
not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined
to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise
of this jurisdiction under Order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
12 RP-216-2025
corrected’. A review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal
in disguise'”.
11. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be
permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the
conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be
confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to
correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. This point has been
elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported
in (2006) 5 SCC 501, where it was held thus:
“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 enoughSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1253113 RP-216-2025
to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review
can be exercisedwith 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.”
13. After discussing a series of decisions on review
jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others
reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Apex Court observed
that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As
long as the point sought to be raised in the review
application has already been dealt with and answered,
parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned
judgment only because an alternative view is possible.
The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were
succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
14 RP-216-2025
statute:
20.1. When the 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;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any
other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju
Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius & Ors. to mean “a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of
India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors
reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337,.
20.2. When the 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
15 RP-216-2025
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the 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 re-heard 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 advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived.”
12. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order
passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier
judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review
application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the
predecessor Court had overlooked two important documents that showed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
16 RP-216-2025
that the respondents were in possession of the sites through which the
appellant had sought easementary rights to access his home- stead. The
said appeal was allowed by this Court with the following observations:
“3 …It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC
389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors
committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise
of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised
on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may
be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground
that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the
province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be
confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate
court to correct all manner of errors committed by theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
17 RP-216-2025
subordinate court.”
13. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and
Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court emphasized the
requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the
ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the
same was not within his knowledge and held thus:
“21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that
where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of
new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be
relevant and must be of such a character that if the same
had been produced, it might have altered the judgment.
In other words, mere discovery of new or important
matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex
debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review
has also to show that such additional matter or evidence
was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise
of due diligence, the same could not be produced before
the court earlier.”
14. In the captioned judgment, the term ‘mistake or error apparent’
has been discussed in the following words:
22. The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its
very connotation signifies an error which is evident per
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1253118 RP-216-2025
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 14 exercising the power of review, the
court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its
judgment/decision”.
15. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court explained as to
when a review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and
held thus :
“18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all
barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities
of law can stand in its way. The order of the court shouldSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1253119 RP-216-2025
not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is
adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in
Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law
bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction
exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and
fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed
under a mistake and it would not have exercised the
jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in
fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be
precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted
as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the
nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending
on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the
power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either
statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the
mistake is of the Court”.
16. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman
Singhji Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, the Apex Court held
as follows:
“4….. It is well settled that the power to review is
not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law eitherSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1253120 RP-216-2025
specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in
the Act was brought to notice from which it could be
gathered that the Government had power to review its
own order. If the Government had no power to review its
own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have
reviewed its order. ……”
1 7 . In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West
BengalVs. Kamal Sengupta reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that
“a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review.”
18. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments
discussed, there is no error apparent on the face of record as well as the
ground of the impugned order being passed without grating any
opportunity of filing reply to the petitioners/State before the Writ Court
i s per se illegal, as at the time of passing of final order, learned Govt.
Advocate appearing of the petitioners/State had vehemently replied to
the contentions of the respondents, which is evident from the impugned
order itself and had not sought time to file reply which indicates that at
that time, there was no requirement for the State to file reply and now,
when certain findings are given and directions are issued to the State, the
facts which were already available with the State, are being tried to be
brought on record through this review under the garb that no opportunity
to file reply was granted, which is impermissible, therefore, the order
impugned doesn’t warrant any interference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
21 RP-216-2025
19. The Apex Court in the case of Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thr
Secretary, Land … vs M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. has held as under:-
“61. At the same time, there are a line of decisions
which have held that exercising power of review for “for
any other sufficient reason” must be analogous to the two
reasons mentioned in the provision therein, namely, –
1) 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 was made; or
2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record.
62. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
states that the fact that a 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. Thus, the bar is for a
Court to review its judgment, when a Court superior to it
has subsequently reversed or modified a judgment on a
question of law……”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12531
22 RP-216-2025
20. Since none of the grounds of review has been carved out by
the learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioners/State, this Court doesn’t
find any reason to review/recall the order impugned herein. Accordingly,
review petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:31:26 PM