Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kumar Dixit vs Dhirendra Shukla on 2 July, 2015
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL.
Review Petition No. 255/15
Ram Kumar Dixit
Vs.
Dhirendra Shukla and others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.K.Bharadwaj, Senior Advocate with Shri M.P. Agrawal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.K.Soni, Advocate for respondent No.1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 02 / 07 /2015) Petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 25.2.2015 passed in W.P.No. 845/15. Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel, by taking this Court to para 9 of the order under review, contended that this Court has given the finding that the judgment of Supreme Court cannot be read as a statute. Precedential value of a judgment depends on the facts and circumstances in which a matter is decided. He submits that para 9 of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 1333 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) and others) makes it clear that the finding was not confined to the statute in hand. It was a general finding/conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court, whereas it is a conclusion of that nature, it was binding on all Courts including the Supreme Court (Bench of similar strength). He relied on 2013 (4) M.P.L.J. 679 (Scindia Devasthan Regd. Charitable Trust Vs. Praveen Kumar Nigam and others) and AIR 2015 Allahabad 97 (Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others). He submits that the judgment of Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts and authorities. The judgment of High Court is also binding on the benches of similar strength. If one bench disagrees with the finding of another bench of similar strength, the only course open to the subsequent bench is to refer the matter for constitution of larger bench before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. In nutshell, Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel 2 submits that the document Annexure P-7 makes it clear that it is not a re-delinquishment deed, on the contrary it is a simple agreement.
2. Prayer is opposed by Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.3. He also relied on various paragraphs of order dated 25.2.2015. He submits that there is no material on the basis of which review jurisdiction can be exercised.
3. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The bone of contention of Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel is based on para 9 of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Rasiklal Maneklal (supra). Admittedly, said case is based on different statute. The document in the said case was of different nature. Whether or not the re-delinquishment has actually taken place depends on the language employed in the instrument. When the language employed in the instrument is tested on the anvil of relevant statute/provision, it can be decided whether re-delinquishment has taken place or not. There cannot be a thumb rule or straight jacket formula in this regard. Whether document amounts to re-delinquishment deed or not depends on the nature of the document. This Court has given detailed findings on merits in W.P. No. 845/15. Under the garb of review, the points on merits cannot be permitted to be re- agitated. In other words, by way of review petition, the matter cannot be permitted to be re-argued or re-agitated on merits. The review jurisdiction is limited. Unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is any other ingredient analogous to the ingredients mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, no interference is warranted. In para 7 of the order under review, this Court has passed the following findings:-
"The impugned order shows that the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to utilize the document Annexure P/6 in evidence during cross-examination on the ground that the petitioner on the one hand has denied the existence of the agreement Annexure P/3 and on the other hand trying to take benefit of another instrument 3 (Annexure P/7) which is based on the earlier agreement dated 29.01.1983. The Court below also opined that there is no averment in the written statement regarding instrument Annexure P/7."
6. The learned senior counsel is unable to show any such error which warrants interference from this Court. So far legal submission regarding precedential value of judgment is concerned, the said principles cannot be doubted. It is settled that judgment of court cannot be construed as a statute. Blind reliance on a judgment without considering fact situation is bad. Thus, on these legal principles, no debate is required. Since petitioner has failed to show any error which warrants interference, interference is declined.
7. Review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv