Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahadev Prasad Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9203
1 RP-290-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 290 of 2026
MAHADEV PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Kumar
Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
ORDER
This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review/recall of the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14/2025 (Mahadev Prasad Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Others).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Patwari and at the relevant time he was posted at Halka No.33, Village Parasari, District Datia. An application was filed by one Mayaram S/o Puttulal before the Naib Tehsildar under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for mutation of his name in certain survey numbers on the basis of a sale deed dated 04.04.2018. It is submitted that the concerned Naib Tehsildar, after calling a report from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:54:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9203 2 RP-290-2026 petitioner and after following due procedure including issuance of notice for objections, passed an order dated 08.03.2019 directing mutation of the name of Mayaram in the revenue records. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being a Patwari, merely complied with the order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Naib Tehsildar and accordingly mutated the name of Mayaram in the revenue records. The petitioner had no role in preparation of the alleged sale deed or in the alleged forgery. It is further submitted that subsequently a complaint was made by the previous owner and an enquiry was conducted by the Collector, in which it was found that the petitioner was not at fault and that the alleged forged sale deed had been prepared by the concerned private persons. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.12.2024, and thereafter an FIR at Crime No.256/2024 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. It is argued that the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the petitioner had only complied with the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar and no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against him. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition was earlier heard on 14.01.2026, and this Court had directed the respondents to file an additional return and also called for the case diary for proper consideration of the matter. However, the matter was later listed on 05.02.2026 and the writ petition came to be dismissed in the absence of counsel for the petitioner, without considering the earlier direction dated 14.01.2026 whereby the Court had required the respondents to file additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:54:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9203 3 RP-290-2026 return and produce the case diary. It is submitted that certain important documents were also obtained by the petitioner from the authorities, which clearly indicate that the mutation entry was made in accordance with the official procedure and was approved by the Naib Tehsildar. Learned counsel submits that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the order of the Naib Tehsildar was false or fabricated has resulted in error apparent on the face of the record, particularly when the authenticity of the said order could have been verified from the concerned Naib Tehsildar who is still in service. It is further submitted that the order dated 05.02.2026 was passed in the absence of counsel for the petitioner and therefore the relevant facts and documents could not be brought to the notice of this Court and therefore prayed that the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in W.P. No. 14/2025 may kindly be recalled/reviewed and the writ petition be restored for fresh hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the present review petition and submits that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is very limited and can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. It is submitted that the order dated 05.02.2026 has been passed by this Court after considering the material available on record. The grounds raised in the present review petition are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:54:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9203 4 RP-290-2026
5. The present review petition has been filed seeking review/recall of the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14/2025 (Mahadev Prasad Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Others) under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is very limited. A review can be entertained only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason.
7. In the present case, the grounds raised by the petitioner mainly relate to the merits of the case and he is seeking reconsideration of the issues which were already examined while passing the order dated 05.02.2026 except for his absence at the time of final hearing of the matter. The contentions raised in the review petition require re-appreciation of the facts and material on record, which is not permissible while exercising review jurisdiction.
8. This Court also finds that the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 05.02.2026. The arguments advanced by the petitioner are essentially an attempt to re-argue the matter on merits, which cannot be permitted in a review petition. So far as the submission of the petitioner that the order was passed in the absence of counsel is concerned, the same by itself cannot be a ground to review or recall a reasoned judicial order when the matter has already been considered and decided on merits by this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:54:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9203 5 RP-290-2026
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to exercise its review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
10. Accordingly, the present review petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:54:18