Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC | Second Review Application Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that pursuant to the provision under Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC, a review of an order passed in a review petition is not maintainable. The Court observed that a clear reading of the provision clearly bars a "second review" application. The bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra further distinguished the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and power under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC- The power that is being exercised by this Court in the present case is not under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the statutory power under which the petition is filed. The instant petition is a petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be imported into this order. The facts of the case were that a petition was filed seeking recall of an order passed by the Court in a Miscellaneous Petition. The said petition was dismissed against which a review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The review petition was also dismissed by the Court, against which, the Petitioners filed the instant review petition.The Petitioners submitted before the Court that gross error had occasioned and hence, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was also asserted that on facts, the Petitioners had a very good case and hence, the review petition ought to be considered. To substantiate their contentions, the Petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shivdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. They also placed reliance on the decisions of the Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Jaswantpuri & Ors. and Lakhanlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Per contra, the State brought the attention of the Court to Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC, pursuant to which, a review of an order in a review application is not maintainable. Examining the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners, the Court observed that they were factually different from the case of the Petitioner and hence would not be of any assistance to them. With the regard to the reliance placed by the Petitioners on Section 141 CPC (Miscellaneous proceedings), the Court noted- The proceedings in this matter have been initiated and contested under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, without going into the same, it is suffice to hold that if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted with reference to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then all the previous proceedings will be a nullity. Apparently, such a submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. The Court further concurred with the objection made by the State that considering the provision laid down under Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC, a second review application is not maintainable. With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that review petition was devoid of merits and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.Case Title: ANAND DEEP SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 184Click Here To Read/Download Order

Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC | Second Review Application Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC | Second Review Application Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers