Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Prabha Mukhrjee vs Dr.Jyoti Prakash Mukherjee on 28 January, 2026
1 FA-132-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 132 of 2006
(SMT.PRABHA MUKHRJEE AND OTHERS Vs DR.JYOTI PRAKASH MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS )
Dated : 28-01-2026
Ms. Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate With Shri Utkarsh Sonkar -
and Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocates for the applicants.
Dr. Rashmi Pathak - Advocate for the Intervenor.
Shri Satish Chand Chaturvedi - Advocate for the respondent No.1
[LR/S].
Ms. Arti Vishwakarma - Advocate for Lrs Of Respondent No. 8. Ms. K.C.V.Rao - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1395/2026, which is an application to correct the status of the present applicant as an appellant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The name of the counsel for intervener be read as the counsel for the LRs of appellant No.1.
Also heard on I.A.No.13894/2023, which is an application for review of the order dated 31.7.2023 passed in First Appeal No.132/2006.
This application for review has been preferred by applicants Mohd. Ashraf (Guddu) S/o Mohd. Abdul Shattar and Mohd. Ashraf, s/o Haji Mohmmad Jalil, who have been impleaded as Legal Representatives along with other maternal relatives of deceased appellant Smt. Prabha Mukherjee in the present First Appeal.
The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 2 FA-132-2006 decree dated 28.1.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2003 by the 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. The appellant No.1 had died on 29.4.2015 and the applicants filed application to be impleaded as LRs of appellant Prabha Mukherjee on the basis of Will said to have been executed by Prabha Mukherjee in favour of applicants.
During pendency of appeal, Intervenor Shri Anand Choudhary (maternal relative) also sought to be impleaded as LR of the appellant in place of the applicants and claimed his right based on succession.
This Court directed the trial court to make an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC to determine the question as to legal representatives. The trial court submitted an elaborate report and concluded that the applicants and the intervenor both are entitled to be impleaded as Legal heirs of the deceased appellant. Accordingly, this court vide order dated 31.7.2023 directed the applicants and the intervenor to be impleaded as legal heirs of deceased appellant.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the property in the present appeal is the family property of Harsh Mukherjee, all rights for the property would devolve upon Prabha Mukherjee by virtue of section 15 of Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, after the death of Smt.Prabha Mukherjee, the property and all the rights of property in the appeal including the right to represent the property in any suit or appeal would have devolved upon the heirs of the husband, i.e. appellants No. 2 and 3, who died intestate and since other heirs of Harsh Mukherjee are respondents in the present appeal, they could not have represented an opposite interest. It is further Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 3 FA-132-2006 submitted that the intervener, who by the impugned order dated 31.7.2023 have been allowed as legal representative of Prabha Mukherjee along with the applicants is the son of one Parvati Devi, who was the sister of Prabha Mukherjee and they cannot represent any interest in property, which is the property of Prabha Mukherjee which she inherited from her husband, due to the bar U/s15(2)(b) and 16 of Hindu Succession Act. It is further submitted that Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act empowers a Hindu by way of Will and other testamentary disposition may dispose of any property. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Singh v. Gurudwara Sahib Narike and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3282 and submits that the persons claiming their right as per the Will have a better right than all the other successors, be it Class I or Class II Successors. It is further submitted that grant of probate is not required in the State of Madhya Pradesh and relied upon section 57 read with section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. It is further submitted that burden to prove the Will does not arise until the person questioning the Will has not disputed it in a manner which would raise questions on its authenticity and the way it was executed. It is further submitted that even if there is misinterpretation of law or wrong interpretation of law then also it is a subject matter of review. To bolster his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 7.11.2024 of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. in Review Petition No.400/2021, Yashwant Sinha and others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 2 SCC 338.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Intervenor/impleaded LRs Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 4 FA-132-2006 (maternal relatives) filed reply/objection to the application and submits that after the order of this court dated 31.7.2023, the difficulty which arose for the applicants Mohd. Asraf (Guddu) & Mohd. Asraf that which one of the two Wills, the applicants would apply for probate, as the said so called two Wills available with them are self contradictory.
It is further submitted that the present review application is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and, therefore, not maintainable. While arguing on the scope of review learned counsel submits that the error apparent in the order must be self-evident and does not require elaborate arguments. The present review application is an attempt to re-argue the already passed speaking order, which is infact an appeal in guise and abuse of the process of law. To bolster her submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of Hon. Apex court in the case of N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria, (2013) 15 SCC 534, Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., (2013)8 SCC 320, S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023, Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 and Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255 . She further relied upon the judgment of Apex court in the case o f Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 and Andhra Bank Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1962 SC 232, to state that legal representative is only for the purpose of continuation of proceedings and not for deciding final rights of parties. Further, this Court in the case of Bherulal v. Banshilal, 2015 (2) MPLJ 155 , held that a legal representative under CPC need not necessarily be a legal Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 5 FA-132-2006 heir and any person representing the estate can be substituted. It is further submitted that mere production of a Will, whether registered or not, does not conclusively establish representation of estate, particularly when the Will itself is highly disputed and has not been proved in accordance with law. The Hon. Apex court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (Dead) through LRs v.Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521 , has held that when there are rival claimants to the estate, the Court should ordinarily implead all such persons, leaving their inter se rights open. On the point of genuineness of Will, it is submitted that the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Clarence Pais v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 325, has clarified that in States where probate is not compulsory, a Will does not attain conclusiveness unless duly proved in accordance with law. Again, absence of probate does not dispense with proof of the Will. It is further submitted that this Court in para 12 of the order dated 31.7.2023 has dealt with the said issue by relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court. It is further submitted that the contention of the applicants that burden to prove a Will does not arise is incorrect. The learned Trial Court in its inquiry report has in detail sketched all the suspicious circumstances about the creation of Will and left the said suspicious circumstances to be decided by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the present review application based on Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act has been already been considered by this Hon'ble Court and vide para 11 of the impugned order dated 31-07-2023 answered the same in negative. It is further submitted that the applicants are seeking to exclude all other legal representatives at the threshold despite the fact that Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 6 FA-132-2006 the enquiry report found multiple claimants and the appeal is still pending adjudication. On these grounds prays for dismissal of the application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only argument which has been raised by learned senior counsel for the applicants is that as per section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu succession Act, the intervener, who have been impleaded as LRs by the order under review are barred to be the natural heir/successors to claim succession of estate of deceased Prabha Mukherjee as they are the maternal relative of deceased Prabha Mukherjee. No other grounds which are mentioned in the application been pressed during the course of arguments.
At the outset, learned counsel for the intervenor/applicants who have been impleaded as LRs of the appellant to prosecute the appeal being the maternal relatives of deceased Prabha Mukherjee have taken objection that after due enquiry ordered by this Court under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC and recording the finding of fact, this Court has granted permission to the intervenors to be substituted as LRs of the deceased to contest the suit and by mere impleadment/substitution of the proposed LRs, the title of the deceased is not going to be settled in either of two contesting LRs and the order which has been passed after due consideration of law and facts cannot be reviewed as it does not ex-facie contain any error apparent on the face of record.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope review in the case of N. Anantha Reddy (supra) has held as under :-
"6. A careful look at the impugned order would show that the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by Respondent 1 and, in the light of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 7 FA-132-2006 the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 8-6-2011. The course followed by the High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 8-6-2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope review in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra) has held as under :-
19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 :
AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 8 FA-132-2006 original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v ) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope review in the case of S. Murali Sundaram (supra) has held as under :-
"......After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
5.2 It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
5.3 In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra), it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that an error which is not selfevident and has to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 9 FA-132-2006 detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 5.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that in the present case while allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it while exercising the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope review in the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under :-
"25. ........The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court i n Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , wherein in para 9 the following has been laid down : (SCC p. 719) "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 allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."
The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope review in the case of Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) has held as under :-
"33. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 10 FA-132-2006 appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the superior court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (refer : Chhajju Ram v. Neki [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR 1954 SC 526] ) Considering the facts of the present case and applying the principles of law laid down in the case of N.Anantha Reddy (supra), Kamlesh Verma (supra), S. Murali Sundaram (supra) and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra) and Madhusudhan Reddy, it is clear that this Court under review jurisdiction cannot substitute its own finding as an appellate court, once the court has taken a view that the applicant who has filed an application for substitution on the basis of maternal relationship, be impleaded as a party as the other LRs have been impleaded as a party on the basis of Will, which requires proof of its genuineness. However, as the estate of the deceased is to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM 11 FA-132-2006 represented before the Court, both have been impleaded as parties. So far as the contention in regard to impleadment of the maternal relative of deceased Prabha Mukherjee is barred by section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act is concerned, if that plea is allowed then in the considered opinion of this court, this Court has to take another view and substitute its own finding, which is not permissible in exercise of review jurisdiction. If the applicants are aggrieved by the said finding, which may be erroneous in the eyes of law, but that cannot be the subject matter of review, the applicants may file appropriate proceedings before the higher court.
Accordingly, I.A.No.13894/2023 for review of the order dated 31.7.2023 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:47:37 AM