ALLAUDDIN Vs. SAYRA BI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been filed under Section 11 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 for reviewing the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. No. 887/2014.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the respondent Sayra Bi had filed the aforesaid appeal and had only prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2014 in MJC No. 13/13 by First A.D.J., Sendhwa, Distt. Barwani. Counsel contended that the MJC had been filed by respondent Sayra Bi because an ex-parte decree had been passed against her in Civil Suit No. 3B/11 by the 02nd Additional District Judge, Sendhwa and the MJC had been filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13. Unfortunately however this MJC had also resulted in a dismissal primarily on the ground of limitation since Sayra Bi had failed to take prompt action for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Counsel candidly admitted that by the order dated 21.01.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 887/2014, this Court had by way of clemency (since the respondent Sayra Bi was a Pardanashin woman and dependent on her lawyer for conducting her case) by imposing costs of Rs. 3,000/- had condoned the delay and set aside the order purely on humanitarian grounds. However, Counsel has vehemently urged before this Court that while allowing the appeal, this Court has in the impugned paragraph held thus:--

(3.) Per contra Counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged the fact that this review petition was also delayed by period of 11 days and sufficient explanation has not been given by the petitioner as required under the provisions of law. Illness and routine old age cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Coming to the main objection Counsel urged that a review petition should be allowed when the error is apparent on the face of the record and such an error, therefore, must be patent and should not require consideration and assessment of materials and evidences recorded in the case. Both the parties according to the Counsel for the respondents were heard on the occasion and the discretion exercised by the Court after hearing both the parties cannot be challenged only on the ground that one out of two views could be taken by the Court. And the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting review of order. Counsel relied on Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, 1995 AIR(SC) 455 and Ishwar Dutt v. Gyan Chand, 1998 AIR(Raj) 302.