Madhya Pradesh High Court | Review of an order passed in a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 9 held not maintainable; Petition dismissed

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. dismissed a second review petition holding that pursuant to the provision under Order XLVII Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a review of an order passed in a review petition is not maintainable.

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.

Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners contended that gross error had occasioned and hence, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the same. She relied on few judgments and Section 141 of CPC.

Deputy Advocate General objected stating that in terms of Order XLVII Rule 9 of CPC a review of a review is not maintainable.

The Court distinguished the judgments relied on by the petitioner on facts and reiterated Section 141 of CPC holding 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. The Court further reproduced Order XLVII Rule 9 of the CPC:

“9. Bar of certain applications.- No application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.”

The Court dismissing the petition held that clear reading of Order XLVII Rule 9 would bar the second review application.

[Anand Deep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 1816, decided on 08-07-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mrs Shobha Menon, Sr Adv and Ms Aanchal Saraf, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Mr Amit Seth, Deputy Advocate General, Advocate, for the Respondent 1;

Mr K.C. Ghildiyal, Sr Adv with Mr Aditya Veer Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent 6 and 16;

Mr Umesh Tripathi, Advocate, for the Respondent 5.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.