1. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been preferred seeking review/recall of the order dated 24.07.2026 passed in W.P. No.18028/2026.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner (respondent No. 4 in writ petition) submitted that writ petitioner (respondent No. 5 in review petition) has suppressed the material fact that one complaint was made by student Dilip Dhakad and on that complaint, show cause notice dated 23.06.2025 has been issued to writ petitioner and enquiry commission has also been constituted. Thereafter, enquiry committee has also issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner and writ petitioner has also given his statement and thereafter enquiry committee has given enquiry report and forwarded to Dean vide order dated 02.09.2025. The aforesaid fact has been suppressed by the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that in Para 8 in the impugned order, this Court has mentioned that no show cause notice, adverse communication restraining order or opportunity of hearing was ever given to the writ petitioner before excluding his name from the list of thesis guides. Learned counsel for review petitioner further submitted that this Court issued the impugned order without giving any show cause notice to the review petitioner and ex parte the aforesaid writ petition has beeen disposed of. It is further submitted that prima facie suppression has been shown. On these grounds, review petitioner seeks recall of the aforesaid order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 (writ petitioner) submitted that notices have been issued to present review petitioner on 26.05.2026 and the notices have neither been received back nor return unserved and in view of the presumption under Rule 11(1) of Chapter 15 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, service upon the review petitioner was deemed to be good/sufficient and duly effected. On that basis, this Court had passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2026. It is further submitted that even in the review petition, review petitioner has not submitted any detail that on which date, notice was served upon the review petitioner and when he had appointed the OIC. Even they have admitted that due to improper communication between OIC of the writ petition and counsel of review petitioner, Vakalatnama in writ petition could not be filed within time and further submitted that no affidavit of concerning OIC has been submitted and no datewise detail has been given. Once this Court has passed the order against review petitioner, he has filed the present review petition. It is submitted that with malafide intention, respondents in writ petition including present review petitioner have not participated and remained ex parte in the earlier round of litigation. On this count, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 prays for dismissal of present review petition.
4. Heard both counsel and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that notice was issued to the review petitioner on 26.05.2026 and, as it was neither returned nor served back unserved, service was deemed sufficient under Rule 11(1) of Chapter 15 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The review petition does not disclose the date of service of notice or appointment of the OIC, nor does it contain any affidavit of the concerned OIC or date-wise details. The petitioner has merely attributed the delay to improper communication between the OIC and counsel. According to learned counsel, the respondents deliberately remained ex parte in the writ proceedings and have approached the Court only after the impugned order was passed.
6. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the review petitioner by issuing the notices and on the date of hearing, i.e., 24.07.2026, there is a strike on that date, but review petitioner was having opportunity to file Vakalatnama before 24.07.2026 and in the review petition, review petitioner has not mentioned the date, when notice is received and on which date, OIC has been appointed.
7. Furthermore, even the review respondent No. 5 submitted in Para G of his return submitted that:-
"G. That, as to para 2.7, the same is not available to the petitioner as it relates to the intra-departmental activities of the petitioner. However, for fault of OIC, for which liability has not yet been fixed by the petitioner is not on record. Therefore, it cannot be considered that it was the mistake of the OIC even if otherwise it was so, no advantage can be given to the petitioners at this stage. On 24.07.2026 the lawyers were abstaining from the court work as a matter of record. But it cannot be seen as a bona fide cause for the advocate for the petitioners to appear before this Hon'ble Court because no Vakalatnama was ever filed before 24.07.2026 and even otherwise, if he was willing to appear on 24.07.2026, he could have filed the Vakalatnama in the office of the Hon'ble Court which was not restricted by any procedure. Therefore, the same is not available."
8. Despite the aforesaid return, even in the rejoinder also, review petitioner has not submitted any details that on which date, review petitioner has received the notice and when OIC has been appointed and when Vakalatnama has been prepared and handed over to OIC and submitted that due to medical condition of OIC, review petitioner has not submitted the Vakalatnama in time. No affidavit of OIC has been attached in this regard and when this Court has dictated the order, then review petitioner prays for time to file affidavit and show the details. There is a specific objection raised by the respondent No. 5 in Para G of his return and in the rejoinder filed on 15.09.2026, review petitioner has not rebutted the fact mentioned in Para G.
9. Thus, the explanation offered by the review petitioner remains unsupported, and there is no apparent error on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 24.07.2026.
10. Scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:
"When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921- 22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
When the review will not be maintainable:
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The meres possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
11. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detailed examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.
12. Apart from the above, Section 114 of the CPC, which is the substantive provision and deals with the scope of review is required to be quoted and analyzed :-
"Section 114- Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
13. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment as set out in Order XLVII of the CPC is also required to be discussed:
"1. Application for review of judgment -
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
14. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
15. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562, the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:
"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed :
'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."
16. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the Apex Court held as under:
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court opined:
11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous.
Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise".
[emphasis added]
17. Testing the case of petitioner in the present review petition on the touchstone of the mandate laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, this Court finds that no case for interference is made out. No mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is discernible so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction.
18. The scope of review is extremely limited and cannot be invoked for rehearing the matter or taking a different view on the same set of facts. Since no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated, no ground for interference is made out in the exercise of review jurisdiction.
19. Resultantly, the review petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
