Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Rudrapal Singh Bhadouriya – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of right in property by review petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. grounds for review petition based on previous dismissed writ. (Para 2) |
| 3. criteria for when review petitions are not maintainable. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments against the review petition's viability. (Para 4) |
| 5. court's assessment of review petition's grounds. (Para 5) |
| 6. final decision allowing approach to authority for participation. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by a person claiming himself to be an interested party in a property which was subject matter of W.P. No.145/2023 decided by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023 alleging that though he had accrued certain rights in the property in question as the sale-deed has been executed in his favour, but without impleading him as a party the respondents have obtained an innocuous order of directing the respondent no.3 therein to decide the matter regarding mutation pending before it in case no.1024/2020-21(B-121).
2. Review of the order dated 27.01.2023 has been sought on the ground that earlier with regard to same subject-matter one W.P. No.4731/2013 was filed by the predecessor in title of the review pet
The court affirmed that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must demonstrate grounds such as patent errors; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings does not substantiate a review.
The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and detailed discussion of citations in the order is not necessary.
Review petitions under the CPC are not maintainable when an appeal against the same decree is pending; the proper remedy is an appeal, reinforcing the prohibition of parallel proceedings.
A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an erroneous decision or disagreement with prior judgments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review may only be exercised for specific reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face o....
Review under Order 47 of the CPC is limited to errors apparent on record or new evidence; disagreement with the judgment does not suffice for a review.
The power of review under Order 47 of the CPC is not a mechanism for appeal and is limited to apparent errors and significant new evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
