MP HC Dismisses State Review, Noting Late Husband’s Writ Had Allowed Widow To Challenge Later Proceedings

The State sought review of the order dated 4 August 2026 in W.P. No. 34817/2025, alleging that the petitioner in that writ petition had failed to disclose that her husband had earlier filed W.P. No. 5691/2006.

The respondent stated that her husband died while the earlier petition was pending, that it was decided after his death, and that a subsequent order dated 10 November 2023 gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

She also said she was unaware of her husband’s earlier petition.

The Court first allowed the State’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the review petition.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, review is not an appeal or a rehearing; an apparent error must be manifest and not require a detailed examination or reasoning.

Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, further establish that review is warranted only for a patent, material error that undermines the order’s soundness or risks a miscarriage of justice.

The Court accepted that the husband’s earlier writ petition remained pending during his lifetime and was decided after his death, and that the respondent later challenged the order dated 10 November 2023 on the basis that it created a fresh cause of action.

Applying the limited review standard, the Court found no patent error in the order under review.

The State’s contention about non-disclosure did not establish a ground for review, particularly in light of the respondent’s explanation and the liberty granted in the earlier writ petition to challenge subsequent or appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

It dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit.