ORDER

1. In this review petition, petitioners seek amendment in the cause-title of W.P. No. 1077/2021, as well as, in cause-title annexed to the impugned order dated 9.2.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the cause title of the writ petition, name of department has been mentioned as "Public Works Department" instead of "Water Resources Department". He further submits that for rectification of the aforesaid error, he had already moved an amended petition along with list of documents which was registered as Document No. 998/21 on 27.1.2021 having been duly received by the Office. The said amended petition was filed much prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 9.2.2021. However, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners when they received certified copy of the order dated 9.2.2021 that in spite of amended petition having been filed, name of the department in the cause title of the order was mentioned as "Public Works Department" instead of "Water Resources Department". Therefore, this error, which has crept in due to inadvertence and is apparent on the face of record, needs to be rectified.

3. A bare perusal of the record of W.P. No.1077/2021 reveals that no application for amendment in the cause title was ever moved by the petitioner. The amended copy of the petition was filed along with list of documents. On going through the order-sheets, it is seen that no order for filing the amended copy of the writ petition was ever passed. In such circumstances, the petitioners ought not have filed the amended copy along with list of documents.

4. In this regard, rule 17, Chapter IX of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 is quite categoric. The same reads thus :-

17. (1) The following petitions or applications and their replies shall be accompanied by an affidavit --

(a) for review made upon the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence;

(b) for stay, injunction or appointment of receiver;

(c) for vacating an order referred in clause (b);

(d) for security under order XLI, rules 6 and 10 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908;

(e) for re-admission, re-hearing or restoration of a main case or an application dismissed for default of appearance or for non-payment of process fee or paper-book costs;

(f) for production of additional evidence under order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

(g) for production of any document in any case;

(h) for an action in respect of contempt of Court;

(i) for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased party on record or for addition of parties;

(j) for the appointment or discharge of guardian ad litem or next friend;

(k) for amendment of a memorandum of appeal or application for review or revision on a minor party attaining the age of majority;

(l) for transfer of any civil or criminal case;

(m) for amendment in the petition or for taking document on record in writ cases or for intervention or compromise;

(n) any other application required by any law for the time being in force, to be supported by an affidavit.

(Emphasis supplied)

5. From the above, it is clear that the practice adopted by the petitioners of filing amended petition along with list of documents without any application for taking it on record and affidavit, is clearly dehors the above provision. In fact there is no provision of filing documents without accompanying application and affidavit. Besides, there is no order for taking such amended petition on record, nor it was brought to the notice of the Court while passing the impugned order. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record, hence, the prayer made in the review petition cannot be countenanced.

6. It is seen in large number of cases that Advocates have developed a practice of filing documents along with list of documents without there being any application supported by affidavit to take the same on record. It has