MP HC Rejects Review: Arbitration Award And Pending Title Suit Alone Don’t Halt Section 250 Possession Order Without Stay or Injunction.

The petitioners sought review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC of the High Court’s order dated 8 September 2026 in W.A. Nos. 729 and 730 of 2026.

The order allowed W.A. No. 729, directing implementation of an order under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC), and dismissed W.A. No. 730.

It held that a pending civil suit does not, without a stay or injunction, prevent enforcement of a Section 250 order, while leaving questions of title to the Civil Court.

The review petitioners relied, among other matters, on an arbitration award, prior proceedings, and authorities said to have been overlooked or incorrectly applied.

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review for discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.

Under Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, an error requiring reasoning to detect is not an apparent error, and review cannot operate as an appeal in disguise.

Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati confirms that review is not a rehearing or appeal, that a mere possibility of two views is insufficient, and that evidentiary reappreciation is outside review jurisdiction.

Section 250 MPLRC provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession; a civil court’s determination of title prevails, but a Section 250 order remains operative pending that determination unless stayed or restrained.

Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal v. Chetu Batte recognises a Bhumiswami’s right to pursue a civil suit but does not bar implementation of a Section 250 order merely because a suit is pending.

The Court held that the arbitration award and its asserted effect concerned title, which the order under review had expressly left for determination by the Civil Court.

Even if the award had the effect of a decree, it did not establish that the Section 250 order was suspended in the absence of a stay or injunction.

The Full Bench decision had been considered and distinguished; disagreement with that application of law was a matter for appeal, not review, and no basis for a Larger Bench reference arose.

The other cited authorities were also considered, while the issues concerning locus, title, and possession had been left to the Civil Court.

The petitioners neither established an apparent error nor, for material allegedly not on the record, showed that it was unavailable despite due diligence.

Their cumulative grounds sought reappreciation of matters raised or available at the appeal hearing, which review jurisdiction does not permit.

It dismissed the review petition without costs, leaving any challenge to the merits to be pursued before the appropriate higher forum.