Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wpil Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38582
JBP:38582 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
REVIEW PETITION No. 733 of 2024
WPIL LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Jaideep Verma - Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
..................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 21.03.2025
Pronounce on : 19 .08.2025
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Vishal Mishra This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9971 W.P.No.9971 of 2024.
2. After carefully examination of the grounds as well as the arguments raised before this Court, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review of the order. The petitioners are virtually trying to arguee the matter on merits again, which is not permissible in review Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-08-2025 10:28:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38582 JBP:38582 2 petition. The grounds which have been taken in the present petition are not a ground for review. The review can be made only in exceptional circumstances where there is an error apparent on the the face of record. The scope of review is limited as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jain Studios Ltd. vs Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501; State of West Bengal vs Kamal Sengupta, Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612; S. Bagirathi Am Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission, Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479.
479
3. In the case of Jain Studios Ltd.. (supra), the Hon'b Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised w with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of "second innings"
which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."
4. In the case of Kamal Sengupta (supra), it is held as under :
"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-08-2025 10:28:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38582 JBP:38582 3 detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
5. Further, in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an errorerror cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has held that ""a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The error apparent on the face of the record should be such that it would have affected the final decision of the case."
case. Further the Hon'ble Supreme upreme Court in the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smt. S. N. Kansagra reported in (2016) 4 SCC 363 has a review is not a re-hearing observed that "a re hearing of the original matter and the Court can only interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the record record."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-08-2025 10:28:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38582 JBP:38582 4
7. In the present case, the grounds raised in the review petition are mere re-iteration iteration of the arguments advanced during the hearing of the original petition and do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. No glaring irregularity or illegality legality could be pointed out by the petitioner in the order passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, looking to the limited scope of interference, no case is made out for reviewing the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9971 W.P.No. of 2024.
8. The review petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 20-08-2025
10:28:29