The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Renu Singh Hindoliya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
1 RP-2282-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2282 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030290292026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SMT. RENU SINGH HINDOLIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.S.Tomar - Govt. Advocate for the review petitioner-State.
Shri RBS Tomar - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 9994 of 2026, application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 9994 of 2026,
is allowed and the delay in filing the present petition is hereby condoned.
4. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the
order dated 04.08.2026 passed in W.P. No. 34817/2025.
5. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that the review-
respondent filed W.P. No. 34817/2025 without disclosing the fact that her
husband had earlier filed W.P. No. 5691/2006. It is contended that the
aforesaid fact was suppressed by the review-respondent. In support of his
submission, learned counsel has relied upon the order dated 08.05.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
2 RP-2282-2026
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of M.P.

and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Yadav, W.A. No. 1267/2026.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the review-respondent submits that
her husband had filed W.P. No. 5691/2006 and, during its pendency, he
expired on 24.05.2023. Thereafter, the said writ petition was decided on
08.01.2024. It is further submitted that the respondents issued the order dated
10.11.2023, which was challenged by the review-respondent by filing W.P.
No. 34817/2025. Learned counsel contends that the order dated 10.11.2023
gave rise to a fresh cause of action to challenge the same. It is further
submitted that the review-respondent had no knowledge of the earlier writ
petition filed by her husband.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is undisputed that the husband of the review-respondent had
earlier filed W.P. No. 5691/2006, which remained pending during his
lifetime and he expired on 24.05.2023. The said writ petition was thereafter
decided on 08.01.2024.
9. The respondents had issued the order dated 10.11.2023, which was
subsequently challenged by the review-respondent by filing W.P. No.
34817/2025. The review-respondent has taken the stand that the order dated
10.11.2023 gave rise to a fresh cause of action for challenging the same and
that she was not aware of the earlier writ petition filed by her husband.
10. Scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review
jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
3 RP-2282-2026
jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:


When 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 “any other
sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by
this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR
1954 SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in the rule”.

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 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 meres 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) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived.

11. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which
is prima facie visible and does not require any detailed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
4 RP-2282-2026
examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review

cannot partake the category of the appeal.
12. Apart from the above, Section 114 of the CPC which is the
substantive provision and deals with the scope of review is required to be
quoted and analyzed :-

“Section 114- Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved:-


(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal
is allowed by this Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed by this Code; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court
of Small Causes, may apply for a review of
judgment to the court which passed the
decree or made the order, and the court may
make such order thereon as it thinks fit."


13. The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment as set out in Order XLVII of the CPC are also required to be
discussed:

“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
5 RP-2282-2026
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.


(2) A party who is not appealing from a
decree or Order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an
appeal by some other party except where the
ground of such appeal is common to the
applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate
Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a
question of law on which the judgment of the
Court is based has been reversed or modified
by the subsequent decision of a superior
Court in any other case, shall not be a ground
for the review of such judgment.]"


14. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within
the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient
reason.
15. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported
in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
6 RP-2282-2026
order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error

which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of
justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:

“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we
resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any
feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard.
But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied
that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh
Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court
observed :

‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a
glaring omission or patent mistake or like
grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin
ground but review of an earlier order which
has the normal feature of finality.”

16. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self evident and the one
that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers
of review, the Apex Court held as under:

“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be
strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt.
of A.P. reported in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court
opined: ’


11. What, however, we are now concerned
with is whether the statement in the order of
September 1959 that the case did not involve
any substantial question of law is an ‘error
apparent on the face of the record’. The fact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
7 RP-2282-2026
that on the earlier occasion the Court held on
an identical state of facts that a substantial
question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might
be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement
was wrong, it would not follow that it was an
‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for
there is a distinction which is real, though it
might not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterized as
vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error.

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while
quoting with approval a passage from Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported
in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that
review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

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 this jurisdiction under Order 47 rule 1 CPC
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". [emphasis added]


17. Testing the case of petitioner in the present review petition on the
touchstone of the mandate laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, this Court
finds that no case for interference is made out. No mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record is discernible so as to warrant exercise of review
jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33776
8 RP-2282-2026
18. The scope of review is extremely limited and cannot be invoked

for rehearing the matter or taking a different view on the same set of facts.
Even in W.P. No. 5691/2006 decided on 08.01.2024, liberty was extended to
challenge the subsequent/appropriate proceedings in the matter of similarly
situated employees in accordance with law. Since no error apparent on the
face of the record has been demonstrated, no ground for interference is made
out in the exercise of review jurisdiction.
19. Resultantly, the review petition, being devoid of merits, deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
11:01:48 AM