Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sai Construction Though Partner Suneel ... vs Dhanno Bai on 11 March, 2026
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 RP-487-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
REVIEW PETITION NO. 487 OF 2025
SAI CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PARTNER SUNEEL KHANDUJA
Versus
DHANNO BAI AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadauria with Shri Kamal Mangal - Advocates
for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Shukla - Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Ms. Monica Mishra - Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16.01.2026
Delivered on : 11.03.2026
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this instant review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") seeking recall of the judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed in F.A. No.16/2017 (Sai Construction Vs. Dhanno Bai and others).
2. Record reflects that respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit against the petitioner/appellant/defendant for declaration of sale deed dated 23.08.2010 null and void and refund of consideration amount and issuing the permanent injunction on the ground that Dhanno Bai has executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner/appellant and respondent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM2 RP-487-2025
3. Admitted facts between the appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 are that registered sale deed dated 23.8.2010 has been executed by Dhannobai in favour of respondents with consent of respondent No.2 - Parmal Singh. Respondent No.1 Dhannobai belongs to schedule caste Sahariya (Adivasi), hence, permission to alienate the suit property was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 24.1.2016. At the time of execution of sale deed, consideration was paid by the appellant through several cheques, out of them, one cheque bearing No.746448 of Rs.10,00,000/- was given in the name of respondent No.2 but except that cheque, remaining cheques were honoured by the Bank and payment was made to the petitioner, but the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- was returned with the endorsement of "insufficient fund"
and the amount of cheque was not paid and the cheque was dishonoured.
4. Brief facts of the case of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs before the Trial Court are that despite serving the notice to defendant No.1, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- issued through cheque No. 746448 was not paid to them. After dishonour of the cheque, plaintiff No.2 has sent a registered notice to defendant/appellant on 21.4.2011, but same was unserved. Plaintiffs are ready to return the consideration amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant No.1 as the defendant No.1 has not paid sale consideration as per the terms and conditions of sale deed in due time and due to non-payment of full consideration, sale deed dated 23.8.2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 became null and void. Defendants committed fraud with the plaintiff, due to which, plaintiff No.1 was deprived from sale amount, hence defendants did not have any title and ownership of the suit land, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 3 RP-487-2025 therefore, plaintiffs have filed suit for relief of permanent injunction.
5. Appellant/defendant No.1 opposed the same, denied all these plaint averments by stating in his written statement that by mistake amount of Rs.10,00,000/- could not be deposited in the Bank, hence cheque was dishonoured, but defendant No.1 was always ready to pay the amount to the plaintiffs on return of the cheque to defendant No.1 and after dishonour of the cheque, defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to return the cheque and received the amount in cash, but the plaintiffs were not ready to return the cheque and they were demanding more money with malafide intention. The suit is not maintainable as the consideration was paid and possession of the suit land was handed over to the appellant at the time of execution of sale deed and the suit was neither duly valued nor adequate Court fees has been paid in accordance with rules, therefore, the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed.
6. Respondent No.3/defendant No.2 also denied all these averments of plaint by stating in its written statement that the permission to alienate the suit property was granted, but the plaintiffs have no title over the suit property. Plaintiffs have failed to file any relevant document to establish their title and possession over the suit land. The land in question is not the ancestral property of plaintiff No.1, it was granted on lease to the landless persons. Plaintiffs have not disclosed that from where and from whom, the land in question was received and she became owner. Therefore, they are not entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 both have filed this collusive suit. Plaintiff No.1 Dhannobai belongs to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 4 RP-487-2025 member of schedule tribe community. The State has filed the counter- claim before the Trial Court but same was rejected. The aforesaid transaction of sale has been done in violation of Section 165(6)(c) of MPLRC, therefore, the sale deed is void ab initio and defendant No.1 does not accrued any title over the suit land.
7. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, the Trial Court has framed the issues and after completing the evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence available on record passed the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was partly allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner/appellant has preferred First Appeal No.16/2017 before this Court and vide judgment dated 24.02.2025, the same has been dismissed by affirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner/appellant preferred this review petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in Para 15 of the judgment stated that the sale deed is void because the sale consideration was not paid. The Court has relied upon the judgment of Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others (Civil Appeal No.6989-6992 of 2021, order dated 22.11.2021), which has no application in the present matter. There was a payment of complete consideration to the owner. Thus, there is an apparent and manifest error on the face of the record. In the present matter, consideration was received by the seller and there is no ground that the price has not been received. Dhanno Bai was not examined before the Trial Court, which is having the direct adverse impact in the matter. On the basis of law laid Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 5 RP-487-2025 down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by placing the reliance over Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC, which is applicable only where the land is in notified schedule area, but the disputed land is situated in Gwalior District, which is not notified area as per the notification enclosed herewith Annexure-B, therefore, new reasoning given by the Appellate Court is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, he prays that the review petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside.
9. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs and others reported in 2020 Supreme (SC) 6442 = 2020 AIR (SC) 3310.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the scope of review is very limited. No such ground has been raised by way of filing the review petition, which was not raised before the Trial Court. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not constitute the grounds for review. This Court cannot sit as an Court of Appeal. Learned Appellate Court has given a specific finding on all the grounds raised by the petitioner/appellant. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and does not deserve for any interference by way of exercising the review jurisdiction.
11. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the respondents Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 6 RP-487-2025 has relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Hukma Dading Vs. Jitendra Dating (R.P. No.782/2024, decided on 24.07.2024).
12. Both the parties heard and perused the entire record with due care.
13. Section 114 of the CPC, which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:-
"Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
14. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 7 RP-487-2025 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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review 1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
15. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
16. It is a trite law that the scope of review is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Arvindakshan Nair and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692 has considered the limited scope of review and has held that:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM8 RP-487-2025 "5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-
"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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. The Court passing the order is entitled to review the order, if any of the grounds specified in the aforesaid provision are satisfied.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM9 RP-487-2025
7. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined: (AIR p.1377, para 11) "11.What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."
8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court after referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, held thus:
(Parison Devi case, SCC p.719, para 9).
"9.Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 10 RP-487-2025 allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
9. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects only to highlight the nature of review proceedings.
17. When a judgment is passed by a Court, the doctrine of functus officio applies to it. This latin doctrine means that if the judgment in a case has been pronounced or an order has been made following due process of law, in such circumstances, the case cannot be reopened. The right to file a review petition is an exception to this doctrine.
18. It is settled law that in exercise of power, the Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence arrived at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in the matter and under the grave of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat the old and overruled argument for reopening conclusions arrived at in a judgment because the review Court cannot work as an Appellate Court.
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and another [SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025] has held as under:-
"Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 11 RP-487-2025 more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories."
20. The main ground of review petition is as to the applicability of provisions of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC is concerned, petitioner has raised a legal plea that at the relevant time, notification under Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC was not applicable for the District Gwalior, because as per the notification issued under Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC (Annexure -B), the District Gwalior was not notified as a scheduled area for application of the aforesaid provisions. No doubt that, this issue is raised first time before this Court. It is also true that no new ground can be raised at review stage, but it is not a factual issue, actually it is a complete legal issue and legal issue can be raised at any stage, therefore, it cannot be considered as a new ground for review.
21. From perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, it appears that at the time of arguing the first appeal before this Court, no such argument has been advanced by any of the party that at the relevant point of time, District Gwalior was not notified as scheduled area for application of provisions of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC, therefore, being a legal issue, this issue can be raised at the stage of review, apart from above, it is also supported by the relevant notification (Annexure - B) filed by the petitioner and this Court is bound to take Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 12 RP-487-2025 judicial notice under Section 56 of Indian Evidence Act regarding the said notification and it would not be justifiable to ignore such material available on record.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the legal ground related with the application of Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC for notified scheduled area, is a most relevant and material issue, which touches the roots of the case and directly and significantly impacts upon the result of the instant case, therefore, the notification (Annexure - B) as a new material evidence has come to the light, which could not be produced earlier.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner also explained to this Court as to why appellant/petitioner with due diligence could not place it before the Court at earlier stage as despite sufficient efforts, such notification was not available at the earlier stage. It appears a sufficient reason for not producing it at the earlier stage, therefore, discovery of this new fact relates to the legal point is material and sufficient reason for proper adjudication of instant case.
24. In the case of Board of Control of Cricket India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club reported in AIR 2005 SC 592, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that words sufficient reason occurring in Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "amicus curiae neminem gravabit".
25. From perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, it appears that the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by placing Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 13 RP-487-2025 the reliance over the Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC, which is applicable only where the land is a notified scheduled area. From combined reading of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC, it is clear that there has to be notification by the State Government, but in the instant case, both the parties did not produce such important notification before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and in absence of any such notification, this Court has given findings that in violation of provisions of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC, the entire transaction is null and void, therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of misconception of law and fact both.
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753 and Janardhan Jaikrishna Vs. Gangaram Mangalchand reported in AIR 1951 Nagpur 313 and AIR 1971 MP 191, observed that if the mistake committed by the Court or order passed without considering any material fact, the Court can take cognizance of the matter and the Court can take acknowledge a significant, apparent error of law and fact or new evidence, set aside the previous order and reopen such case for further proceedings. This, however, is not a rehearing of the case but a correction of an error. It is also noteworthy that review petition is a procedural tool, that allows the Court to re-examine its own judgment to correct "patent errors" or "glaring omissions", that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
27. In the instant case, material fact and law is regarding application of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC applicability in a scheduled area and at that time, the District Gwalior was notified as a scheduled area.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM14 RP-487-2025 Attention of the Court was not drawn to the aforesaid statutory provisions during trial before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. It is more than mere error, which is manifest on the face of the record, undermines it soundness or result in miscarriage of justice. therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court may also re-open its judgment because manifest wrong has been done in the matter and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.
28. So far as the second ground raised by the petitioner that he has paid the entire consideration to the respondent No. 1, which has been duly received by her and finding of non-payment of consideration passed by both the Courts below is erroneous in nature. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue regarding the aforesaid grounds shall remain open to decide it afresh by the Appellate Court after giving sufficient opportunities of hearing to both the parties, therefore, taking aid of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case, in which, the mistake apparent on the face of the record is committed by the First Appellate Court by misconception of law and fact and in not interpreting the provisions of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC and its impact properly.
29. It is also necessary for enquiry in the matter by the Court in detail, whether any other relevant notification under Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC has been issued in respect of declaring the District Gwalior as a scheduled area or not ? Therefore, in the interest of justice, it should be just and proper to provide sufficient opportunities of hearing to all the parties and the other stake holders regarding this new evidence. In the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM 15 RP-487-2025 guise of review, rehearing is not permissible, therefore, that can be done by deciding the First Appeal afresh.
30. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Imaan (Mohd. Rumman) Vs. Chinta Singh and others reported in 2024 (1) Revenue Nirnay 447 observed as under:-
"10. In view of the above discourse, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise the power of review as the First Appellate Court decided the appeal and gave finding which suffers from misconception of law and fact. Ergo, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 13.4.2023 passed in F.A. No.471/2016 is hereby recalled. First Appeal is restored to its original number and it be listed for rehearing, which shall be decided afresh in accordance with its own merits."
31. This citation is completely applicable in the instant matter also. On the basis of aforesaid, this review petition is partly allowed and the judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed in F.A. No.16/2017 is hereby recalled and first appeal is restored to its original number and it be listed for rehearing, which shall be decided afresh in accordance with its own merits after giving sufficient opportunities of hearing to both the parties on the issue of applicability of Section 165(6)(a) of MPLRC in the instant matter along with all the issues, which have been raised by the petitioner/appellant in the first appeal.
32. Accordingly, review petition is stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/11/2026 5:40:54 AM