Madhya Pradesh High Court
Proprietor Gulati Enterprises Shri ... vs Shri Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami ... on 23 September, 2015
RP-447-2015 (PROPRIETOR GULATI ENTERPRISES SHRI GAYATRI SANKSRIT PATHSHALA VISHWESHWAR ASHRAM Vs SHRI JAGAT GURU SHANKARACHARYA SWAMI SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI) 23-09-2015
Shri R.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Saurabha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed this petition for review of the order dated 23.06.2015 passed in Second Appeal No.994/2012.
Learned Senior Counsel has contended that a decree of eviction has been passed against the petitioner under Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and the provisions of Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act have not been complied with by the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the report submitted by the corporation that the permission was granted by the municipal corporation for construction was already expired and there is no evidence in regard to Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on record in regard to fulfillment of criteria of Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Lalsingh Mehendra Singh vs Rameshchand Ghanshamdas and another reported in 1985 M.P.LJ. 334.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has already held as under in regard to maintainability of the review petition :
âWhen 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 âany other sufficient reasonâ has been interpreted in Chhajju Ramvs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean âa reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the ruleâ. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.
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 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 re- heard 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.â The Apex Court has clearly held repetition of old arguments or a different view taken by the Court on a particular case is not a ground for review. Courts below have also considered the arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel and this Court has also considered the same. Hence, in my opinion, this review petition is not maintainable on the grounds raised in this petition.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in this review petition. It is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
C.C. as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE vkt