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 the impugned order, is unsustainable. It is further argued that a remand should not have been directed without adequate consideration of the law as laid down in the cited judgments. The petitioner, therefore, prays for the impugned order to be recalled by allowing the review petition.

This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1

of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 11.12.2025 in Misc. Appeal No. 5320

of 2025.

2. The petitioner's primary contention is that the order passed by this Court

is erroneous, contrary to settled legal principles, and overlooks relevant Supreme Court judgments, thus warranting a review. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner contends that the impugned order is erroneous and contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. (2016) 10 SCC 313, which mandates that a remand order by an appellate Court must be accompanied by specific reasoning for such a remand. No such reasoning has been provided in the impugned order. The case has been decided without considering the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttaradi Mutt

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the remedy of review is not available to the petitioner as review is not a ground to reopen the case based on errors of law or fact, which are matters to be raised in a higher forum. The learned counsel refers to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ratan Lal vs. Bardi Bai and Others (2003 2 JLJ 86) and the unreported Division Bench decision in MP Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Ltd. vs. Kalidas Chaubey (RP No. 553 of 2025), decided on 9th July 2025, to argue that review proceedings cannot be used to reassess the merits of the case. It is further contended that the order passed by this Court is in line with settled principles of law and that the remedy for any alleged errors lies in an appeal before a higher Court, not by way of a review petition. The respondent contends that there is no ground to reopen the case and the review petition is therefore misconceived and should be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and carefully considered their submissions.

5. As per provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, review is permissible only in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or when a mistake of law or fact has been committed, and it does not allow for a rehearing or substitution of views. Review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction, and the power of review must be exercised within the limits prescribed under the law.

6. In the present case, the review petitioner has primarily raised issues regarding the adequacy of reasoni