##PAGE1##

1

CR No.918 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

CIVIL REVISION No. 918 of 2024

RAJ KISHORE DUBEY AND OTHERS

Versus

KIRTI NARAYAN DUBEY AND OTHERS

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Gulattee - Senior Advocate with Ms. Tulika Gulattee -

Advocate with Shri Somesh Rai - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Shri Lal Ji Kushwaha - Advocate through VC and Shri Avinash Sahu -

Advocate for the respondent Nos.13 to 15

.……………………………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R

(Reserved on 12.12.2025)

(Pronounced on 03.02.2026)

The present revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order

dated 06.09.2024 passed by the 1st District Judge, Narmadapuram in MJC

No.48/2022 whereby the said Court has rejected the application of the

petitioner under Section 152 CPC for correction/amendment in judgment

and decree passed by the appellate Court dated 19.03.2007.

2. The basic facts for the purpose of disposal of present revision are that a

suit was filed for declaration, partition and separate possession by the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR

SARATHE

Signing time: 03-02-2026

18:07:33

2

CR No.918 of 2024

plaintiffs against various defendants and the present petitioners are the legal

representatives of original defendant No.7 namely Hemvati Bai. The

defendant No. 7 was the sister of plaintiff as well as of defendants No.1, 2,

3 and 4 and the legal representatives of the other sister of these parties were

defendant No.6.

3. The judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 16-03-2001

thereby deciding the suit and passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff

granting him 1/5 share in the suit property and further holding in reply to

issue No.3, that plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 4 are each entitled to

1/ 5 share each and are entitled to get the suit land partition in that manner.

4. An appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree by some of

the defendants before the appellate Court which came to be decided by the

appellate Court vide appellate judgment and decree dated 19-03-2007 and

in the appellate Court, cross-objections were filed by the legal

representatives of the sisters being defendants No. 6 and 7 and it was held

that these two sisters who are defendants No. 6 and 7, whose legal

representatives were on record, are entitled to get 1/ 8 share in the suit

property. The mother of all these parties namely Defendant No.5-Shipra

Bai was also entitled to get share and in this manner as the number of

sharers got increased from 5 to 8, therefore each of the parties i.e. plaintiff

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR

SARATHE

Signing time: 03-02-2026

18:07:33

3

CR No.918 of 2024

and defendants No. 1 to 7 were held entitled to 1/ 8 share each in the suit

lands.

5. The said judgment and decree was challenged before this Court by the

defendants No.1 and 8 in Second Appeal No.867/2007 and the said second

appeal remained pending before this Court and was ultimately dismissed as

abated vide order dated 03-05-2023. The counsel for the petitioners/LRs of

defendant No. 7 has vehemently argued before this Court that after

dismissal of the second appeal as abated, the petitioners had filed an

application under Section 152 of CPC and the said application was earlier

not filed because at that time the decree was subjected to appeal. The said

application was filed before the appellate Court to the extent that once the

appellate Court has categorically given finding in para-23 of the judgment

passed in appeal that the defendants No.6 and 7 are entitled to 1/ 8 share

but still in the operative part of the judgment this finding was not

incorporated and the original plaintiff was still held entitled to more than

1/8 share and in the operative part of the judgment so also in the decree,

nothing has been mentioned as regards to defendant No.7. Therefore, the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from mistake which

may be acci