Ranjeet Ladiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
1 RP-2125-2026
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 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2125 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010719482026
RANJEET LADIYA AND ANR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Ladiya petitioner in person.
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate Anuj Shrivastava - Advocate
for respondent.
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 P-1) passed by this Bench in W.A. No. 729 of 2026, decided
along with W.A. No. 730 of 2026.
2. By the order under review, W.A. No. 729 of 2026 was allowed,
the 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
2 RP-2125-2026
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 and that a decision of the Civil Court
on the question of title would ultimately prevail over the revenue order. It
was also recorded 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, as the material relating to their title was
not considered. That their documents were treated as illegible without an
opportunity to clarify, replace or place them properly on record. That they
were not given an effective opportunity to make final submissions. That,
once a civil suit involving title is pending, the revenue authorities cannot pass
or execute any order. That the locus of the original applicant, Smt. Sarla
Bothra, under Section 250 of the MPLRC was not examined and that
implementation of the order would cause them irreparable loss while the civil
proceedings are pending. They pray that the order be reviewed and the matter
be reconsidered afresh after allowing them to place all documents on record
and to advance final submissions.
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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
3 RP-2125-2026
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
4 RP-2125-2026
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. At the outset, the review petitioners themselves state in the very
first ground that their documents were not submitted by them. Non-filing of
documents by a party at the time of hearing is not an error apparent on the
face of the record. The documents now relied upon, namely the sale deed in
favour of Neeraj Sukheja (Annexure P-2), his affidavit (Annexure P-3), the
Agreement to Sell dated 29.08.1998 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated
01.09.2003 in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2003 (Annexure P-5), all relate to earlier
years. There is no averment that, despite due diligence, they were not within
the knowledge of the review petitioners or could not be produced when the
order was passed. Thus, no case of discovery of new and important matter or
evidence under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is made out.
8. The contention that the documents were treated as illegible and
that no effective opportunity of hearing was given is also without substance.
The order dated 08.09.2026 does not record that any document of the review
petitioners was treated as illegible. The order records the appearance of
counsel for the private respondents and, in paragraphs 10 to 12, notes their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
5 RP-2125-2026
submissions that Civil Suit No. 156-A/2020 concerning the subject property

is pending, that title and ownership are for the Civil Court, and that no
interference is warranted. The matter was thus heard and decided on the
contentions raised. Nothing on record shows that any application was made
for placing further documents or for further hearing before the order was
passed.
9. The remaining grounds, namely the pendency of the civil suit and
the bar on the revenue authorities, the title of the review petitioners, the locus
of Smt. Sarla Bothra and the irreparable loss likely to be caused, were all
matters which were either raised or were open to be raised at the hearing of
the writ appeal. The question whether the filing of a civil suit overrides an
order under Section 250 of the MPLRC was framed as the core question in
paragraph 15 of the order under review and was answered in paragraphs 16
to 18 and 24 to 28, after considering the decisions cited by the respondents.
This Court also made clear that the question of title is left to the Civil Court
and that its decision will prevail. The review petitioners, in substance, ask
this Court to re-appreciate the material, to re-consider the view already taken
and to hear the appeal afresh. That is not permissible in review jurisdiction,
as the law laid down in Parsion Devi (supra) and Kamlesh Verma (supra)
shows. Even if the review petitioners consider that another view is possible, a
mere possibility of two views cannot be a ground for review.
10. An erroneous decision of a court cannot be corrected by
exercising review jurisdiction. It can only be corrected through an appeal
before a superior court. An error that has to be detected by a process of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83851
6 RP-2125-2026
reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record

for the Court to exercise its powers of review, petitioner challenged the
finding recorded by court on merit as per the facts on record which could not
be reassessed in exercising of the power of review. 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 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.
11. 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:
10/16/2026 6:28:26 PM