IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 1303 of 2025 BHANU KUMAR JAIN Versus MUNNA LAL JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Avinash Zargar with Shri Nikhil Tiwari - Advocates for the petitioner.

Shri Bharat Singh with Shri Siddharth Shukla - Advocates for respondent No.4.

ORDER This petition is filed seeking review of order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in FA No. 98 of 2011 (Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Shri Munnalal Jain and others).

2. This Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 qua amendment application being I.A. No. 18751 of 2025 had directed the petitioner's counsel to file an affidavit of the counsel whose presence is marked in the order under review to demonstrate that the matter was never taken up before the Court and thereafter the order has been passed, as the averments made in the application amounts to making serious allegations against the Court. The presence of Senior Advocate who appeared in the case is marked in the order under review. However, petitioner's counsel submits that he is not in a position to file such affidavit. Therefore, the averments made in the amendment application could not be considered. Under these circumstances, petitioner's counsel has shown his willingness not press the amendment application being I.A. No. 18751 of 2025.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 18751 of 2025 is disposed of as not pressed.

4. Now adverting to the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein is the defendant No.4 before the civil court. A civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 decreed the suit and granted decree of specific performance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Bhanu Kumar Jain preferred a first appeal before this Court being FA No. 98 of 2011 which was finally heard on 17.04.2025 and vide order dated 26.06.2025, the coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal being devoid of any substance.

5. The record indicates that detailed order has been passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.06.2025 in FA No. 98 of 2011 considering all the arguments. It is argued that limitation aspect is not considered by the Court. The petitioner is trying to reopen the entire case on merits which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the merits of the case;

only an error apparent on the face of the record could be seen.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the scope of review is very limited and until it is shown that there is error apparent on the face of record in the order sought to be reviewed, the same cannot be reviewed. It is contended that the matter was taken up and was argued length, the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in FA No. 98 of 2011 reflects the presence of senior counsel and no affidavit could be filed to substantiate the averments made in the amendment application.

7. The petitioner's counsel could not point out the error apparent on the face of the record.

8. The scope of review is very limited and has been dealt with in catena of decisions. In State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta , reported in (2008) 8 SCC

612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"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.

22. The term “mistake or error apparent”