Discovery of a non-notified tribal area status constitutes a legal error apparent for reviewing a judgment.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit to declare a 2010 sale deed null and void, alleging that a portion of the sale consideration (a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000) was dishonored and that the transaction involved fraud

The petitioner (defendant) contended the unpaid amount was a mistake and they were ready to pay in cash

The Trial Court partly allowed the suit, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s First Appeal (F.A.No.16/2017) on 24.02.2025, affirming that the sale was void due to non-payment of consideration and a violation of Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) regarding tribal land alienation

The petitioner filed this review petition primarily asserting that the court committed a manifest error by applying Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC, as the land is located in Gwalior District, which is not a notified "scheduled area"

1. Whether the application of Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC to land in Gwalior District constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

2. Whether the discovery of a government notification clarifying the non-scheduled status of the area qualifies as "new and important matter or evidence" that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence

The court applied Section 114 and Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allow for the review of a judgment based on the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason

It relied on *Sasi v. Arvindakshan Nair* to define the limited scope of review, emphasizing that it is not an "appeal in disguise"

The court also referenced Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC, which restricts the transfer of land by members of aboriginal tribes in notified scheduled areas

and Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding judicial notice of government notifications

The Court observed that its previous judgment in the First Appeal was heavily predicated on the violation of Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC

However, the petitioner produced a notification (Annexure-B) demonstrating that Gwalior District was not a notified scheduled area at the relevant time

The Court reasoned that while this was a new plea, it was a "complete legal issue" that touched the roots of the case and led to a "misconception of law and fact"

Under the doctrine of *amicus curiae neminem gravabit* (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), the Court determined that ignoring the non-applicability of the statutory provision would result in a miscarriage of justice

Since the original finding of "void ab initio" was based on this erroneous statutory application, the error was deemed patent and manifest

It held that the misconception regarding the regional applicability of Section 165(6)(a) of the MPLRC constituted a sufficient ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

The First Appeal was restored to its original number for rehearing to decide all issues afresh, specifically the applicability of the MPLRC and the merits of the sale consideration dispute, after providing parties the opportunity to address the new evidence