Shri B.K. Agrawal, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Shri A.V. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

ORDER

Vivek Agarwal, J.Petitioner/plaintiff has filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 29.7.2016 passed in W.P.No.4731/2016.

2. The brief facts leading to present review petition are that respondents No.1 and 2 in this review petition had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 4.7.2016 passed in civil suit No.14-A/2014 by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior, by which learned trial Court had allowed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC at the fag end of the trial on the ground that provisions contained in Section 8(2) of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (in short "the Act") are mandatory. This Court after referring to the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act, noted the fact that there was no effort on the part of the trial Court where the suit was pending since 2000 and there was a specific plea in the written statement filed by the petitioner/Trust that Registrar Public Trust is to be necessarily included as a party and same has not been impleaded as a party, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable, but for long 16 years this objection was overlooked both by the trial Court, so also the respondent, who is review petitioner before this Court and after 15 years such application was moved to implead the Registrar Public Trust as a party. This Court has held that Section 8(2) of the Act only requires notice and leaves it to the discretion of the Registrar to approach the Court and express its desire to be made a party, if he so requires. It was further noted that learned trial Court to save its own skin had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act and without distinguishing the difference between issuance of notice and addition of a party, allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC which is far in excess of the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Act, therefore, the writ petition was allowed and impugned order passed by the trial Court was set aside.

3. Now the review petitioner has taken a plea that in civil appeal No.3474/2009 the State of M.P. was a party, and therefore, State of M.P. was fully aware of the dispute and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court where too the State of M.P. was a party was affirmed by the Apex Court, therefore, it is submitted that suit remained pending from 2000 to 2011, and therefore, appropriate application could not be filed earlier. This is factually incorrect inasmuch as per petitioners own saying civil appeal No.3474/2009 was disposed of vide judgment dated 8.5.09 (para 4 of the review petition), and therefore, from 8.5.2009 again there was sufficient opportunity both to the trial Court as well as present review petitioner to have taken steps for mandatory compliance of Section 8(2) of the Act. It is also mentioned that provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act and that of Section 80 of CPC are same and they are for enabling the Government to examine the claim to send a suitable reply and to curtail unnecessary litigation which is going to be instituted against it. It is also submitted that after allowing the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, learned Court below on 11.7.2016 again directed to issue notice to the Registrar of Public Trust with copy of the plaint and fixed the case on 12.8.2016 for appearing before the Court. In the meanwhile, impugned order was passed. No where it is reflected that after filing of an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC any notice was issued to the Registrar cum Collector, Gwalior, on the contrary, in the order dated 4.7.2016 passed by the trial Court it is categorically mentioned that probably due to oversight Court had not sent any notice to the Registrar Public Trust. This admission on the part of the trial Court justifies the impugned order inasmuch as when application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was filed, there was no order for issuance of notice to the proposed party and that application was allowed.

4. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajendra Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others as reported in AIR 2006 SC 75 wherein it has been held that when order is passed without deciding many important issues and by ignoring material on record, it is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of record and non-consideration of relevant documents, and therefore, the order is reviewable. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the case of Dharam Deo Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. as reported in (2009) 12 SCC 398 in which exercising authority under Article 142 the Honble Supreme Court directed that in order to do complete justice and without going into niceties of Order 47, Rule 1 direction can be issued to reconsider review petition and by taking on record circulars and documents filed along therewith.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has supported the impugned order and has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. as reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 wherein it has been held that scope of review is only for correction of mistake and not to substitute views. It has been held that mistake apparent on the face of record cannot mean error which has to be fished out and searched. Words any other sufficient reason, mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.

6. Thus, it is apparent that there is no error on the face of record. Petitioner is trying to get a substituted view. He has failed to point out that which important issue and which material on record was ignored by this Court while deciding the writ petition which was a by-party order. In absence of any material showing ignorance of material on record or sidetracking of important issue, judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) in the opinion of this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Dharam Deo Narayan Singh (supra) also has no application inasmuch as admittedly High Courts do not enjoy the authority which is vested in the Honble Supreme Court under Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties. However, since petitioner has failed to make out any ground to show any mistake apparent on the face of record, petitioners case definitely gets effected by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas (supra) inasmuch as petitioner has tried to search and fish out error when there is no error on the face of it. There is no reason assigned by the trial Court for not making mandatory compliance of Section 8(2) of the Act. There is no explanation on the part of the review petitioner for not taking steps to get notices issued against the Registrar Public Trust after decision in the SLP in the year 2009. Further no steps were taken either by the trial Court or present review petitioner to implead the Registrar as party despite there being an objection taken by present respondents No.1 and 2 in the written statement. Thus, for continuous negligence and fault on the part of present review petitioner, it is not open for him to say that there is any error apparent on the face of record requiring a review as none of the parameters prescribed under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC are available. Thus, the review petition fails and is dismissed.