Brother’s Death Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Delayed Review, Says Review Not An Appeal

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to entertain a review petition filed with a delay of 558 days, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any “sufficient cause” for condonation and had, in effect, attempted to convert the review proceedings into an appeal.

The Court emphasised that the limited scope of review jurisdiction cannot be expanded to re-argue the merits of a case, particularly in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.

The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vishal Mishra in Review Petition No. 1739 of 2025, Vinay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Bhupesh Tiwari, sought a review of an earlier order dated February 9, 2024 passed in a writ petition. The State was represented by Government Advocate Anubhav Jain.

At the outset, the Court noted the substantial delay of 558 days in filing the review petition. The primary explanation offered by the petitioner was that he had not been informed by his counsel about the earlier order. Additionally, the petitioner cited personal difficulties, including the death of his brother on October 28, 2023 and his father on December 24, 2024, claiming that these events left him demoralised and unable to take timely legal steps.

The Bench, however, found these explanations unconvincing and inconsistent with the record. It observed that the writ petition itself had been filed in December 2023, after the death of the petitioner’s brother, and was supported by an affidavit filed on February 1, 2024. This, according to the Court, undermined the petitioner’s claim that he was too distressed to pursue legal remedies during the relevant period.

Rejecting the explanation, the Court noted, “If the petitioner was affected by the death of his brother… he would not have been in a position to file the writ petition.” The Bench further recorded that there was no material on record to demonstrate any continuous or sufficient cause that prevented the petitioner from approaching the Court within the prescribed limitation period.

Beyond the issue of delay, the Court also examined the nature of the grounds raised in the review petition. It found that the petitioner was essentially seeking to re-argue the case on merits, which falls outside the narrow confines of review jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and is maintainable only when there is a clear and apparent error on the face of the record.

“No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the petitioner,” the Court stated, concluding that the grounds raised were “in the nature of grounds of appeal.”

In light of these findings, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, being IA No. 22703 of 2025, and consequently rejected the review petition as barred by limitation. The decision underscores judicial consistency in maintaining the distinction between review and appellate powers, while also sending a clear message that litigants must exercise due diligence in pursuing their remedies within the framework of law.

Case Title: Vinay Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 10, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vishal Mishra