Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishandas Parwani (Dead) Through Legal ... vs Shubhalay Villa A Partnership Firm ... on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59297
1 RP-2114-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 2114 of 2025
VISHANDAS PARWANI (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS,
JHANHAVI MANGWANI ALIAS BHARTI PARWANI AND
OTHERS
Versus
SHUBHALAY VILLA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS
PARTNER SHISHIR KHARE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Mishra - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this review petition seeking clarification/modification in the order dated 24.09.2025, passed by this Court in M.P. No. 5163/2025 whereby this Court had allowed the Petition and directed the learned Trial Court to exhibit the documents which were shown to the witness during cross examination, in accordance with law.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents/defendants herein are allegedly misrepresenting the order dated 24.09.2025 and attempting to get several other documents exhibited, which were not part of the adjudication of this Court and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:17:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59297 2 RP-2114-2025 which fall beyond the scope of the order under challenged in M.P. No. 5163/2025. It is argued that unless this Court clarifies its earlier order, grave prejudice will be caused.
3. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of this Court is clear: a procedure has been laid down permitting the Trial Court to exhibit such documents as were shown to the witness during cross-examination. Any apprehension that the opposite party may misuse the order is wholly misconceived.
4. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
5. The scope of review is extremely limited and lies only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or where some material fact could not be produced despite due diligence. The petitioner has not pointed out any such error or oversight.
6. It is evident that this Court, in the order dated 24.09.2025, has not directed the Trial Court to exhibit each and every document produced by the defendants, but only those which were actually confronted to the witness during cross-examination, and strictly in accordance with the evidentiary rules applicable.
7. The apprehension of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the opposite party may attempt to introduce documents beyond the scope of the earlier order is purely speculative. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of anticipation, presumption, or possible misuse. If any party attempts to tender documents contrary to law, it is for the Trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:17:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59297 3 RP-2114-2025 Court to apply its mind and decide admissibility and mode of proof in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. This Court has already laid down the procedure and it is for the learned Trial Judge to determine which documents were actually shown during cross-examination, whether they are admissible, and whether they can be marked as exhibits. No clarification is required. The Trial Court shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and the directions already issued.
8. In view of the above there is no error apparent, no new evidence, and no ground warranting review. The petition seeks reconsideration of the matter which has already been decided on merits, which is impermissible.
9. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE mn Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:17:53