Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Dismissal of Review Petition in Land Sale Discrepancy Case, Citing Sale Deed Error as Inadequate Grounds for Review.”

Case Title – Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors.

Case Number – Review Petition No. 255 of 2024

Dated on – 16^th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors., the Appellant in the case, Govind Khandelwal, has instituted a review petition challenging an order dated 23^rd of January, 2024, which duly dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 1341/2022. The Appellant in the case was aggrieved by the order of the court made in Case No. 1063-One/13 and 1064-One/13 dated 17^th of September,2014 by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior.  These orders of the Board of Revenue permitted the revision of the Appellant and instructed the mutation of Survey No. 219, with an area of 0.314 Aare, to correspond with the details in the sale deed. Thereafter, the Respondents, aggrieved by this decision of the Board, instituted a Writ Petition before the Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. After a scrupulous examination of the facts and the legal aspects, the Learned Single Bench determined that the Appellant had indeed sold 0.314 hectares of land under Survey No. 219, which was later sold by Chaturbhuj Das to the Respondents. The review petition instituted by the Appellant before the Learned Single Judge was duly dismissed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

1. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the word “Aare” was used instead of the word “Hectare” and that it was a crucial discrepancy in the sale deed.
2. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the Writ Appellate Court made an error in dismissing the Writ Appeal and that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order were inaccurate.
3. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that therefore, the review petition should be granted and that the impugned order should be annulled.
4. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the appeal should be reconsidered from scratch

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the sale deed executed by the Appellant evidently stated the land area as 0.314 Aare, which was then sold to them by Chaturbhuj Das and that the Appellant cannot now dispute the terms of the sale deed, especially since it was properly executed and accepted by all the parties involved in the present case.
2. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the attempt of the Appellant to ascribe the discrepancies in the sale deed to a clerical error lacks merit and that the decision to use “Aare” instead of “Hectare” was premeditated during the execution of the sale deed and cannot be revised at this stage.
3. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the review petition of the Appellant is merely an attempt to re-litigate issues already settled by the lower courts and that the Appellant has failed to furnish any new or significant evidence that would justify a review of the previous order.
4. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the order issued by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior and upheld by the Single Bench of the High Court relied on a scrupulous examination of the facts and applicable laws and that there is no evident error in the record that mandates a review of the judgment.
5. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that granting the review petition would cause undue delays and violates the rights as purchasers of the land in this present case and that the court should not entertain the attempt of the Appellant to reopen the settled matters and the impugned order should remain as it is.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes for the permission for the review of the judgments based on the discovery of a new and significant matter or evidence, errors presumed on the face of record, or any other sufficient reason.
2. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes Review
3. Section 22(3)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that every application under this section must be made by a motion that is supported by an affidavit.

ISSUES

1. The main issue of this case revolves around whether the grounds exhibited by the Appellant justify the review of the previous order?
2. Whether the error presumed on the face of the record warrants the review of the judgment?
3. Whether the sale deed stating “Aare” instead of “Hectare” comprises a sufficient reason for the review?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors., analysed the provisions of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other judicial precedents to understand the extent and the limitations of its review jurisdiction. The court stated that a review is different from an appeal and can only address blatant errors evident on the face of the records. The court in this case, observed that such errors should be probable without necessitating comprehensive investigation or inspection. In his case, the Appellant in the first instance relied on the discrepancies in the sale deed, where “Aare” was used instead of “Hectare” but the court stated that this discrepancy was apparent from the beginning and could have been brought up earlier in the legal proceedings. Moreover, the court observed that this error did not offer sufficient grounds for a review, especially since the sale deed had been properly executed and accepted by all the parties involved in the present case. Further, the court observed in the present case that the Appellant in the case failed to furnish any new or significant evidence that could justify revisiting the earlier order. The court, finally, determined that the grounds raised by the Appellant were insufficient to warrant the exercise of review judgment. Subsequently, the court dismissed the review petition, therefore, upholding the previous order issued by the Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment