[Order 47 Rule 1 CPC] MP High Court Refuses To Exercise Review Powers Against Mutation From Sale Deed Which Used 'Aare' Instead Of 'Hectare'

Stating that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference, Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to exercise review jurisdiction in a matter where 'Aare' was used instead of 'Hectare' while drafting the sale deed.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh held that none of the grounds available for review as set out in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC were made out in the case.

“…it is seen that in para 11 and 13 of the order impugned detailed factual discussions have been made wherein, it has also been considered that while drafting the sale deed instead of using word "Hectare" the word "Aare" has been used which cannot be said to be an apparent error on the face of the record,” the bench sitting at Indore observed before dismissing the review petition.

The petitioner had challenged a single judge order which upheld mutation of land as per the sale deed which mentioned the word 'Aare' instead of 'Hectare'. The question under consideration in the previous proceedings was whether the revision petitioner had earlier sold 0.314 Hectares of land to others via a sale deed and whether the mutation as per the contentious sale deed was allowed by the Board of Revenue justly or not.

It was further alleged that the factual findings given in paras 11 and 13 of the writ appeal court's order were erroneous, and hence, fresh adjudication was required.

The court cited various apex court decisions like S. Bhagirathi Amaal v. Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 before dismissing the review petition. With the help of these precedents, the court iterated that an error that has to be fished out and searched does not come within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous, the court added by referring to S. Bhagirathi Amaal.

Relying on Kamal Sengupta, the court also reminded that a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review. The review can be done only on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence otherwise, and it must be demonstrated that the same was not within his knowledge at the relevant time or could not be produced before the court even after the exercise of due diligence, the court added.

“…It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter”, the court further added.

The court underscored that the power of review is not an inherent power, and appellate power cannot be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review. An order can be reviewed only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the court stated by citing the apex court judgment in Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar (2020).

“…Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court”, the court added by relying on Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501.

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Title: Govind Khandelwal v. Suresh Khandelwal & Ors.

Case No: Review Petition No. 255 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 85

Click Here To Read/ Download Order