VASIM Vs. BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review/recall of order dated 27.9.2019 passed by this Court in M.P. No.5070/2019 whereby the petition has been dismissed and order dated 19.6.2017 passed by Civil Judge and order dated 20.9.2019 passed by Additional District Judge have been affirmed.

(2.) Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for he petitioner, submits that at the time of arguments in the petition, the case has been projected as if the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit after issuance of notice dated 28.7.2017 by the Tehsildar u/s. 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), but the fact remains that the plaintiff filed the suit on 3.2.2017 i.e. much prior to the issuance of notice u/s. 248 of the MPLRC, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of record and the order dated 27.9.2019 is liable to be recalled. The petitioner is also seeking review of order dated 27.9.2019 on the grounds which have already been raised and argued on 27.9.2019, in order to justify his possession over the suit land.

(3.) Though the fact has been mentioned in the order that the petitioner filed the suit after issuance of notice dated 28.7.2017, but this Court has dismissed the petition and upheld the orders passed by the Civil Judge and District Judge on other grounds also. This Court has observed that after the death of Bhuvnesh Sharma, his wife has sold the land to the plaintiff, but unless the right and title of Bhuvnesh Sharma are established, his wife had no right to execute the sale-deed. The record of settlement from the year 1984 to 1988 is not available in the record room of the Superintendent, land Records. Initially, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction only, but now he is going to challenge the order passed by the revenue authorities u/s. 248 of the MPLRC and the order for recalling the entries in the revenue record. Therefore, on the basis of proposed pleadings which are going to be made in the plaint, no case for review is made out. By virtue of subsequent development or proposed amendment, the order cannot be reviewed. The law in respect of scope of review is well settled.