The distinction between error apparent on the face of the record and an erroneous order, and the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

ORDER :

1. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 04.08.2022 in Civil Revision No. 175/2020 Madhusudan Pitre and ors. Vs. State of M.P. allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed in MJC No. 83/2019 (MJC No. 161/2019) In State Vs. Madhusudan Pitre and ors. by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur, whereby, an application preferred by the respondent / State under Section 5 of Limitation Act accompanying an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

2. The State has filed I.A. No. 7818/2023 on 16.05.2023 seeking review/recall/modification of order dated 04.08.2022. In substance, as per the application one Nageshwar Sadashiv Pitre filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 4A/1997 against Madhusudan and ors. in which State Government was not a party. This civil suit was decided on 24.12.2005 whereby the trial Court held that plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration of title in respect of specific part of suit property, however, held that property belongs to undivided joint family property between plaintiff and defendant. Copy of that order is Annexure is P-2. No appeal was filed but defendant No. 1 Madhusudan filed an application before the Nazul Officer for issuance of No Dues Certificate in respect of the suit land in the above-mentioned civil suit and that certificate was denied on the basis that the land belonged to State Government and there was no decree regarding the specific part of land. It was also mentioned in the order dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) that Nazul Suit No. 37-A Plot No. 203 area 190 square meters belongs to the State Government. The order is Annexure P-4. Against that order Madhusudan approached the Collector under the provision of revenue circular book. The matter was remanded back by the Collector vide order dated 13.07.2018 for considering the same on the basis of merit, copy of order is Annexure P-6, thereafter, the Nazul officer again declined issuance of NOC vide order Annexure P-7 dated 09.05.2019 then an application was made before Assistant Land Survey Officer Nazul Inquiry Branch, Chhatarpur and the Assistant Land Survey Officer recommended to file appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 4-A/1997 and thereafter, following due process, civil appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3. It is mentioned in Para 3 of the Civil Appeal (Annexure P-9) that respondent/revisioner/petitioner without impleading necessary party in the matter succeeded to get judgment and decree and also took same ground in Para 5 of appeal that State Government being necessary and affected party was not heard.

4. The memo of appeal along with application for condonation of delay is on record (Annexure P-10). The lower appellate Court by impugned order dated 17.03.2020 allowed the application for condonation of delay because of the circumstances that in the civil suit in which State Government was not made a party.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that 1st appellate Court after due consideration had allowed the application for condonation of delay. The order of the 1st appellate Court was challenged by way of Civil Revision No. 175/2020 and this Court allowed the same on 04.08.2022 on the ground that on 03.10.2017, first time application for issuance for NOC was submitted by the petitioner MadhuSudan before the Nazul Officer and on 26.12.2017 (Annexure P-4), the Nazul Officer rejected the same and thereby the limitation would start from 03.10.2017 and not from 24.06.2019. It is submitted by the review applicant/State that it is well settled position of law that no decree obtained by committing fraud, cheating may be allowed to be on record and if any fraud is committed then it can be set aside at any point of time by any Court of law.

6. It is further submitted that in the present case it is clear that civil suit should have been dismissed f