Municipal Corporation Jabalput vs Sushila Shukla

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
1 RP-1370-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1370 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010476332026
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JABALPUT
Versus
SUSHILA SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Vijayendra Singh Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner/Municipal Corporation has filed this review petition
seeking review/recall of the common order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-1)
passed bunch of writ appeals including W.A No. 461/2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that similar issue
have already been considered by this Court in R.P No.2473/2025 and
connected cases and vide order dated 13th July, 2026 (uploaded in ERP) the
same have been dismissed.
3. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
"12. On one hand, the Municipal Corporation is disputing their
appointments, regularisation, and on other hand, Municipal
Corporation is taking services from them since last 30 - 40 years.
Admittedly, the respondents are doing the work of a regular
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
2 RP-1370-2026
employee without getting any benefit of the said post.

13. Recently, in the case of Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar
Rawat, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered the scope of review as under:-
7.3. In Inderchand Jain v. Motilal [Inderchand Jain v.
Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 461]
in paras 7 to 11 it is observed and held as under : (SCC
pp.668-69);-
“7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for
short “the Code”) provides for a substantive power of
review by a civil court and consequently by the
appellate courts. The words “subject as aforesaid”
occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed as
appearing in Section 113 thereof and for the said
purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order
47 of the Code must be taken into consideration.
Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe
any limitation on the power of the court but such
limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the
Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under : (Kamal Sengupta
case [State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC
612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] , SCC p. 631, para 17)
"17. The power of a civil court to review its
judgment/decision is traceable in Section
114CPC. The grounds on which review can
be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule
1CPC, which reads as under:
'1. Application for review of judgment .—(1)
Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal
is allowed, but from which no appeal has
been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from
which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a
decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
3 RP-1370-2026
his knowledge or could not be produced by
him at the time when the decree was passed
or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgment of the court which
passed the decree or made the order.”’

8. An application for review would lie inter alia when the order
suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and
permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In
Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai [Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai, (2007)
15 SCC 513 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 584] this Court held : (SCC p.
514, para 6)
"6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review
are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of
entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of
which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the
face of the order and permitting the order to stand will
lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such
error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be
disturbed."
9. The power of review can also be exercised by the
court in the event discovery of new and important
matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of
due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
applicant or could not be produced by him at the time
when the order was made. An application for review
would also lie if the order has been passed on account
of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review
shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is
beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does
not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the
matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an
exception to the general rule that once a judgment is
signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also
trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked
for reviewing any order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
4 RP-1370-2026
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v.
Union of India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000)
6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] this Court held :
(SCC p. 251, para 56)

"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can
be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to
substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of
power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in
disguise.”
7.2. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [Lily Thomas v.
Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
1056] , it is observed and held that the power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to
substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of
power. It is further observed in the said decision that the
words “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order
47 Rule 1CPC must mean “a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the
rule” as was held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [Chhajju Ram
v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 : (1921-22) 49 IA
144 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose
Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526].
7.1. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik [Haridas Das v.
Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78] while considering
the scope and ambit of Section 114CPC read with Order
47 Rule 1CPC it is observed and held in paras 14 to 18
as under : (SCC pp. 83-84).
“14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it
was held that : (SCC pp. 172-73, para 8) '8. It
is well settled that the review proceedings are
not by way of an appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In connection with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
5 RP-1370-2026
limitation of the powers of the court under
Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar
jurisdiction available to the High Court while
seeking to review the orders under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.
Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389]
speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has
made the following pertinent observations :
(SCC p. 390, para 3)

'3. … It is true … there is nothing in Article
226 of the Constitution to preclude the High
Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres in every court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice
or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it. But, there are definitive
limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the
discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of
the person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the order
was made; it may be exercised where some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found, it may also be exercised on
any analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision was
erroneous on merits. That would be the
province of a court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate
powers which may enable an appellate court
to correct all manner of errors committed by
the subordinate court.’"
*
15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that
review of a judgment or an order could be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
6 RP-1370-2026
sought : (a) from the discovery of new and
important matters or evidence which after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the applicant; (b) such
important matter or evidence could not be
produced by the applicant at the time when
the decree was passed or order made; and (c)
on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record or any other
sufficient reason.

16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389]
, this Court held that there are definite limits
to the exercise of power of review. In that
case, an application under Order 47 Rule 1
read with Section 151 of the Code was filed
which was allowed and the order passed by
the Judicial Commissioner was set aside and
the writ petition was dismissed. On an appeal
to this Court it was held as under : (SCC p.
390, para 3)
‘3. It is true as observed by this
Court in Shivdev Singh v. State of
Punjab [Shivdev Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there
is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of
review which inheres in every
court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of
the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the
discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
7 RP-1370-2026
within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when
the order was made; it may be
exercised where some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be
exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits.
That would be the province of a
court of appeal. A power of review
is not to be confused with
appellate powers which may
enable an appellate court to correct
all manner of errors committed by
the subordinate court."

17. The judgment in Aribam case
[Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.
Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4
SCC 389] has been followed in
Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury,
(1995) 1 SCC 170] . In that case, it
has been reiterated that an error
apparent on the face of the record
for acquiring jurisdiction to review
must be such an error which may
strike one on a mere looking at the
record and would not require any
longdrawn process of reasoning.
The following observations in
connection with an error apparent
on the face of the record in
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan
Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa
Tirumale [Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale,
AIR 1960 SC 137] were also noted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
8 RP-1370-2026
: (AIR pp. 141-42, para 17)

‘17. … An error which
has to be established by
a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points
where there may
conceivably be two
opinions can hardly be
said to be an error
apparent on the face of
the record. Where an
alleged error is far from
self-evident and if it can
be established, it has to
be established, by
lengthy and complicated
arguments, such an error
cannot be cured by a
writ of certiorari
according to the rule
governing the powers of
the superior court to
issue such a writ.’
18. It is also pertinent to mention the observations of
this Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion
Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] . Relying
upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389]
and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] it was observed as
under : (SCC p. 719, para 9)
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record, justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84481
9 RP-1370-2026
it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.”

14. After considering the aforesaid judgments passed by the
Supreme Court of India, which explains the scope and ambit of the
Court's power of review under Section 114 read with Order 47
Rule 1 CPC, we find that these review petitions are nothing but
another attempt to get the order in favour of Municipal
Corporation. Those daily wager who have been left
for consideration the Municipal Corporation is directed to consider
their case under the Policy of Vinaymitikaran of State of M.P.
dated 10.06 2017.
15. In view of the above, the Review Petitions are dismissed.
16. A copy of this order be placed in all connected cases."

5. In view of above, and considering the submission, the controversy
involved in the present petition stands squarely covered by the decision
passed in R.P No.2473/2025 and connected cases, this also deserves to be
dismissed on the same terms.
6. Accordingly, the present Review petition is also dismissed, with a
direction that the order dated 13th July, 2026 passed in R.P No.2473/2025
and connected cases shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case at hand.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
tarun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48