IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

REVIEW PETITION No. 278 of 2019

KALURAM

Versus

NARAYAN AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Abhishek Gulatee - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryan Shukla - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER explain the following errors apparent on the face of the impugned order passed in the second appeal.

The petitioner has filed this review petition under Section 114 CPC,

read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, for review of the judgment and decree dated

17.01.2019, passed in Second Appeal No.633/2016.

2. A decree of specification of contract was passed by the Trial Court

in favour of the plaintiff/appellant in the Civil Suit, and the same was reversed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiff/

appellant before this court.

3. The appellant has drafted the review as an appeal, but the review is

liable to be entertained only if the error is apparent on the face of the record. Even the wrong order/ judgment is liable to be reviewed. This court has decided the second appeal on merit because no substantial question of law was found to be framed in it. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to

(i) "The admission is the best piece of evidence; the defendant has admitted his signature in the Ex.P-1, hence he admits the execution of the document and its contents."

(ii) "Whenever the question arises of the interpretation of a document and its effect, the question of law should be framed".

(iii) "The issue of rediness and willingness has not been considered by the High Court, which learned Trial court considered in para 27 & 50". (iv) "That the plaintiff has been found in possession based on admission by the defendant."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal vs. Ratna Ashok Muranjan and another, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 378, and submits that this review petition be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2019 passed in Second Appeal No.633/2016 be set aside.

5. Heard Shri Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant/plaintiff and perused the record.

6. I have already considered all the above grounds argued in the Second Appeal and decided in accordance with the law. I do not find an error apparent on the face of the record. The law in respect of entertaining the review petition is well settled that even a wrong judgment cannot be reviewed, unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

7. 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 himsel