Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
1 RP-1373-2026
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. 1373 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010476452026
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JABALPUR
Versus
DHEERAJ PRASAD TRIPATHI AND ANR
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. 447/2018.
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 employee without getting any benefit of the said post.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
2 RP-1373-2026
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
3 RP-1373-2026
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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
4 RP-1373-2026
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
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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
5 RP-1373-2026
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 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
6 RP-1373-2026
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 : (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, 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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 16-10-2026
18:33:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84402
7 RP-1373-2026
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