The court emphasized the scope and limitations of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to examine the original order.

Judgment:

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1463/14, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after receipt of the notice of the writ petition, applicant has engaged Shri Ajit Jain, Advocate of Mandsaur who assured applicant that he will appear and conduct the case before the Hon'ble Court. But later on applicant came to know that he has not appeared before the Hon'ble Court on the date of hearing, therefore, the impugned order has been passed in his absence. Thereafter, he came to Indore and obtained the certified copy of order then engaged the counsel and filed the application. Thus, this application is delayed by 115 days. The delay is bona fide, in support of the application, he has filed the affidavit, therefore, it is requested that delay be condoned.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application.

3. We have gone through the application and affidavit. There is no counter affidavit filed by the respondents. We found that the delay in filing the review petition has satisfactorily been explained. Thus, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.

4. Heard on review petition filed under O. XLVII, Rule 1 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking review of the order dated 7-8-2013 passed in W.P. No. 5656/12 by the learned single Judge.

5. Short facts of the case are that non-applicants (herein)/petitioners filed an application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar in respect of agriculture land bearing Survey Nos. 299, 300, 1189, 1190 of Gram Richha Lal Muha, Pargana, Mandsaur on 11-7-2001 with a prayer that the decree has been passed by the Civil Court in favour of their predecessor-in-title on 19-6-1978 in civil Suit No. 16-A/74. As per the decree, non-applicants are entitled to get their names mutated to the extent of 1/4th-1/4th. The application was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar on the ground of delay of 23 years and non-joinder of necessary party, against which an appeal was preferred before the SDO Mandsaur which was dismissed on 31-12-2002 and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was upheld. Thereafter the second appeal was preferred by the non-applicants against the aforesaid order before the Asstt. Commissioner Ujjain which was dismissed on 13-6-2003. The revision was preferred against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue Gwalior by the non-applicants which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-12-2011. Thereafter the non applicants filed writ petition bearing No. 5656/12 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the aforesaid orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Learned single Judge vide order dated 7-8-2013 allowed the petition and set aside all the orders passed by the revenue Authorities with the direction that the non-applicants are entitled to get their names mutated on the basis of decree. It is also directed that on moving fresh application, Tehsildar shall decide the application, but will not dismiss the same on the ground of delay. Learned single Judge had passed the order in the absence of applicant herein as he was not present, though served. Against this order, the review petition is being filed by the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction only when a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice is occasioned thereby. Learned single Judge while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction has not given any reason for setting aside the orders passed by the revenue Authorities. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the judgment o