IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

REVIEW PETITION No. 2 of 2026

SANDEEP KAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Dy. Advocate General for the

respondents/State.

ORDER at the relevant point of time.

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The petitioner has filed the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of

the CPC, 1908, seeking review of judgment dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure

RP/1), whereby W.P. No.112/2012 was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 27.11.2025 on

various grounds, which have already been argued at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. Therefore, reappreciation of the grounds by way of a

review petition is not permissible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents

(Annexure RJ-1 and RJ-2) were not considered while deciding the writ petition, which shows that the petitioner was no more a Director of the firm

4. We have dismissed the writ petition by observing that the petitioner did not file any resolution passed by the Board, in which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted. There is no document to show that when this resolution was passed, it was sent to the Registrar of Companies. Annexures RJ-1 and RJ-2 are the documents prepared by the Chartered Accountant; there is no acknowledgement in them. Respondent Tax Department came up with a specific plea that the petitioner did not inform them about his resignation from the assessee Company i.e., M/s. Relytec Chemicals (I) Pvt.

Ltd.

5. In the case of Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat , reported in (2021) 13 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the scope of review as under :-

7.3. In Inderchand Jain v. Motilal [Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 461] in paras 7 to 11 it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 668-69)

“7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) provides for a substantive power of review by a civil court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words “subject as aforesaid” occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed as appearing in Section 113 thereof and for the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 47 of the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court but such limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under : (Kamal Sengupta case [State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC

612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] , SCC p. 631, para 17)

"17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1CPC, which reads as under:

'1. Application for review of judgment .—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.”’

8. An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai