IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

REVIEW PETITION No. 88 of 2026

NANNI DEVI AND OTHERS

Versus

SATYENDRA SIGNH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vivek Khedkar- learned Senior Counsel assisted by Himanshu Pathak,

learned counsel for review petitioner.

Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava- learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri Rinkesh Goyal- learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3/State.

ORDER vs. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt (2018) 10 SCC 484, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that when an appellate Court directs the trial court to reconsider a matter with additional evidence, it must frame points on which the additional evidence will be allowed. The appellate Court must take evidence in accordance with law before returning its findings. It is further contended that this Court has failed to consider the judgment in Jayaprakash vs. T.S. David (2018) 2 SCC 294, because the issue in that case was analogous to the matter before this Court. It is further argued that additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is crucial in deciding the matter, and remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the trial Court, as directed in