Ms. Ratna Prabha Lamba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
1 RP-2028-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2028 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010692572026
MS. RATNA PRABHA LAMBA AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey with Shri Siddharth S Pandey - Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Anuj Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.10.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeks review/recall of the order dated 08.09.2026
(Annexure RP-1) passed by this Bench in W.A. No. 729 of 2026, decided
along with W.A. No. 730 of 2026. Review Petitioner No.2 is the appellant in
W.A. No. 730 of 2026, in which Review Petitioner No.1 appeared as his
power of attorney holder and learned counsel appeared on his behalf. Both
the appeals were heard together and decided by a common order.
2.   By the order under review, W.A. No. 729 of 2026 was allowed, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
2 RP-2028-2026
order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.

47288 of 2025 was set aside, and the concerned authorities were directed to
implement the order dated 30.04.2016 passed under Section 250 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) in accordance with
law. W.A. No. 730 of 2026 was dismissed. This Court held that an order
under Section 250 of the MPLRC remains valid and enforceable even if a
civil suit is subsequently filed, unless the Civil Court expressly grants a stay
or injunction against it. That the proceedings under Section 250 are intended
for summary restoration of possession. That a decision of the Civil Court on
the question of title would ultimately prevail over the revenue order and that
this Court was not required to examine or determine the title of the parties.
3. The review petitioners contend that the order suffers from an error
 
apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the rights in the subject
property were already determined by the Arbitration Award dated
13.09.1997 in favour of Late Shri Trilokinath Kakkad, father of Review
Petitioner No.2, the challenge to which was dismissed by the District Judge
on 20.04.2000 and thereafter M.A. No. 1073/2000 was dismissed by this
Court on 30.11.2016. That the legal effect of the award as a decree, as laid
down in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Atwal Rice &
General Mills, AIR 2017 SCW 3756, was not considered. That the ratio of
the Full Bench judgment in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal v. Chetu Batte, AIR 1976
MP 160, and of the judgments in Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman,
2024 INSC 1023, and Ramlal v. Phagua, 2006 RN 1, was not correctly
appreciated. That the participation of Smt. Sarla Bothra in the proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
3 RP-2028-2026
arising out of M.A. No. 1073/2000 and the orders passed in Civil Suit No.

66-A/2003, wherein her injunction application was rejected on 08.04.2003
and the suit was withdrawn on 07.09.2007, were not considered and that the
cumulative effect of these circumstances requires reconsideration. In the
alternative, a reference of the legal issue arising out of the Full Bench
judgment in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (supra) to a Larger Bench is sought.
4.   The power of review is confined to the limits prescribed by Order
47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 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 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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi,
 
(1997) 8 SCC 715, has held in paragraph 9 as under:-
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
4 RP-2028-2026
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. ... A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.”
6. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble
 
Supreme Court summarised the principles in paragraph 20, and in paragraph
20.2, on when a review will not be maintainable, held as under:-
“(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 reheard and corrected but lies only for
patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be
a ground for review. ... (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.”
7.   Tested on these principles, the core question decided by the order
under review was whether the filing of a civil suit can override an order
passed under Section 250 of the MPLRC and restrain the Revenue
Authorities from executing it. That question was framed in paragraph 15, and
answered in paragraphs 16 to 18 and 24 to 28 after considering the decisions
cited. In paragraph 18 it was held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
5 RP-2028-2026
“18. The proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC are intended

for summary restoration of possession, whereas the Civil Court determines
questions relating to title and ownership. Ultimately, a decision of the Civil
Court on the question of title would prevail over the revenue order; however,
until such a decision is rendered, the order passed under Section 250 of the
MPLRC continues to remain operative and enforceable.”
8.   It was further recorded in paragraph 24 that this Court was not
required to examine or determine the title of the parties, that the Civil Court
had already examined the title claimed by the respondents and prima facie no
case was found in their favour, and that no injunction had been granted by
any court, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the order passed by
the Tehsildar.
9. The first ground is that the Arbitration Award dated 13.09.1997, its
 
affirmation up to M.A. No. 1073/2000, and the law laid down in Atwal Rice
& General Mills (supra) as to the legal effect of an award were not
considered. The legal effect of the award, and its bearing on the rival claims
of title, is a question of title. The order under review neither decides title in
favour of any party nor against the review petitioners. It leaves that question
to the competent Civil Court and expressly holds that the decision of the
Civil Court will prevail over the revenue order. Whatever rights the review
petitioners may have under the award therefore remain open to be pleaded
and adjudicated in the pending civil proceedings, in which the parties to the
present proceedings are also parties. Even if the award is given the effect of a
decree as contended, that does not lead to the conclusion that an order under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
6 RP-2028-2026
Section 250 of the MPLRC stands suspended by the mere pendency of a suit

in the absence of any stay or injunction, which was the only question
decided. The non-mention of a document or a judgment relied upon at the
hearing, which does not bear upon the question actually decided, cannot be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
10. The second ground relates to the Full Bench judgment in
 
Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (supra), on which the review petitioners also base
their alternative prayer for a reference to a Larger Bench. The petition itself
accepts that the judgment was noticed by this Court. Paragraph 17 of that
judgment was reproduced in paragraph 19 of the order under review, and the
judgment was held to be distinguishable in paragraphs 24 and 27. The said
judgment holds that a Bhumiswami is not bound to avail the summary
remedy under Section 250 of the MPLRC, that he may directly sue for
declaration of title and possession, and that even after a decision under
Section 250 the aggrieved party may institute a civil suit to establish title. It
does not hold that an order passed under Section 250 cannot be implemented
merely because a civil suit is pending, in the absence of an injunction. The
order under review is not in conflict with it and preserves the right of every
party to establish title before the Civil Court. The grievance that the ratio of
the judgment has not been correctly appreciated is an allegation of wrong
application of law to facts, which is a matter for appeal and not for review. A
reference to a Larger Bench is called for only where a Bench disagrees with
or doubts a binding precedent of a larger Bench, and nothing of that kind
arises here. Judicial discipline has been observed, and the prayer for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
7 RP-2028-2026
reference, in substance, is only another way of asking this Court to hear the

appeal afresh.
11.   The third ground relates to Abdul Rejak Laskar (supra) and
Ramlal (supra). Both were noticed in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the order
under review, and paragraph 31 of Abdul Rejak Laskar was reproduced. The
principle that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily excluded
has not been disturbed, since the order under review itself leaves the question
of title to the Civil Court. The principle that a vendor cannot confer a better
title than he himself has relates to the title of the parties, which this Court did
not decide. The grievance that the said judgments were merely noticed, or
that the learned Single Judge had relied upon the principle that the Revenue
Authorities must leave the dispute to the Civil Court, is a challenge to the
conclusion recorded in paragraphs 27 and 28 that such a view cannot be
sustained. A conclusion with which a party disagrees cannot be corrected in
review.
12. The fourth ground relates to the participation of Smt. Sarla Bothra
 
in the proceedings arising out of M.A. No. 1073/2000 and the orders passed
in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2003. These matters pertain to the locus of Smt. Sarla
Bothra and to the question of title and possession, which were raised before
this Court at the hearing, as is recorded in paragraph 10 of the order under
review, and which were left to the Civil Court. The same grounds were also
raised in R.P. No. 2125/2026 against the very same order, which was
dismissed by this Bench on 15.10.2026. If the orders in Civil Suit No. 66-
A/2003 and the other proceedings were already on the record of the writ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
8 RP-2028-2026
appeal, their non-discussion is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

If they were not on the record, there is no averment in the petition that,
despite due diligence, they were not within the knowledge of the review
petitioners or could not be produced when the order was passed, and
therefore no case of discovery of new and important matter or evidence
under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is made out.
13.   The last ground, that the cumulative effect of the arbitration
award, concluded proceedings, previous findings on possession and the
pending civil suit requires reconsideration, is only a combination of the
grounds already dealt with. All these were matters either raised or open to be
raised at the hearing of the writ appeal, in which the review petitioners were
represented through counsel. The attempt of the review petitioners, in
substance, is to have the material re-appreciated and the view already taken
reconsidered. That is not permissible in review jurisdiction as per the law
laid down in Parsion Devi (supra) and Kamlesh Verma (supra). Even if the
review petitioners consider that another view is possible, a mere possibility
of two views cannot be a ground for review.
14. An erroneous decision of a court, if at all it is so, cannot be
 
corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. It can only be corrected through
an appeal before a superior court. An error which has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, and by comparing the ratio of several judgments with
the facts of the case, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of
the record. No error apparent on the face of the record, no new and important
matter or evidence, and no other sufficient reason has been shown to review
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88035
9 RP-2028-2026
the order dated 08.09.2026. If the review petitioners are aggrieved by the

said order on merits, the remedy lies before the higher forum in accordance
with law, and not by way of review before this Court.
15. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. There shall be no
 
order as to costs.

(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
11/3/2026 5:42:52 PM