M/S Ravi Packs Through It Propeietor Ravi Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 RP-1652-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 7 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1652 of 2026
M/S RAVI PACKS THROUGH IT PROPEIETOR RAVI PRAKASH
YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Shankar Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Review Petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking recall of the order dated 06.08.2026 passed in W.P. No.1480/2008,
whereby the writ petition was dismissed as having been rendered
infructuous. The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of W.P.
No.1480/2008 to its original number for consideration on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P. No.1480/2008
was listed for final hearing on 06.08.2026. However, on account of the
recent changes in the High Court website and the manner in which the cause
list was displayed, the name of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the old matter was not reflected properly in the cause list.
Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner remained unaware of the
listing of the writ petition and, therefore, could not appear when the matter
was taken up for hearing. It is submitted that the absence of the petitioner or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

2 RP-1652-2026
his counsel on 06.08.2026 was neither deliberate nor intentional.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself made an
enquiry regarding the status of the writ petition on 09.08.2026 and came to
know that the same had been dismissed as infructuous. Immediately
thereafter, he contacted his counsel, who upon checking the status of the
matter on the High Court website came to know about the order dated
06.08.2026. It is contended that the writ petition was dismissed on the
submission made on behalf of the respondents that, due to efflux of time, no
surviving cause of action remained in the matter. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, the said submission was factually incorrect and the
writ petition had not become infructuous.
It is also submitted that the writ petition had been admitted by this
Court vide order dated 25.02.2014 and was directed to be listed for final
hearing. Prior thereto, by order dated 27.03.2008, this Court had directed that
the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till
07.04.2008, and the said protection was continued at the time of admission of
the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is continuing his
business from the premises in question under the protection granted by this
Court and dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous may expose him to the
imminent possibility of dispossession. It is, therefore, urged that the order
dated 06.08.2026 deserves to be recalled and W.P. No.1480/2008 deserves to
be restored for adjudication on merits.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer and prayed for dismissal of present review petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

3 RP-1652-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The explanation furnished by the petitioner for non-appearance on
06.08.2026 appears to be bona fide. The material placed on record indicates
that the petitioner was not represented when the writ petition was taken up
and was consequently unable to place before the Court the factual and legal
position concerning the surviving cause of action. The order dated
06.08.2026 appears to have proceeded substantially on the submission made
on behalf of the respondents that, owing to the passage of time, the writ
petition had become infructuous.
It is well settled that a litigant should not ordinarily be made to suffer
on account of an inadvertent failure of appearance, particularly when the
matter was pending for final adjudication and had already been admitted by
the Court. The power of review/recall is required to be exercised to prevent
miscarriage of justice where an order has been passed without the relevant
aspect of the matter being brought to the notice of the Court. The petitioner
has promptly approached this Court after acquiring knowledge of the order
and has satisfactorily explained the circumstances leading to his non-
appearance.
This Court is also conscious of the fact that W.P. No.1480/2008 had
been admitted as far back as on 25.02.2014 and had remained pending for
final adjudication. In such circumstances, dismissal of the writ petition as
infructuous, in the absence of the petitioner and without the petitioner having
an opportunity to contest the assertion regarding alleged efflux of time,
would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The ends of justice would,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

4 RP-1652-2026
therefore, be better served by recalling the order dated 06.08.2026 and

restoring the writ petition to its original number.
Accordingly, the present Review Petition is allowed. The order dated
06.08.2026 passed in W.P. No.1480/2008 whereby the writ petition was
dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, is hereby recalled.
Consequently, W.P. No.1480/2008 is restored to its original number.
Let W.P. No.1480/2008 be placed before the appropriate Bench for
consideration in accordance with law.
Review Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM