Judgment: 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1463/14, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after receipt of the notice of the writ petition, applicant has engaged Shri Ajit Jain, Advocate of Mandsaur who assured applicant that he will appear and conduct the case before the Hon'ble Court. But later on applicant came to know that he has not appeared before the Hon'ble Court on the date of hearing, therefore, the impugned order has been passed in his absence. Thereafter, he came to Indore and obtained the certified copy of order then engaged the counsel and filed the application. Thus, this application is delayed by 115 days. The delay is bona fide, in support of the application, he has filed the affidavit, therefore, it is requested that delay be condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application. 3. We have gone through the application and affidavit. There is no counter affidavit filed by the respondents. We found that the delay in filing the review petition has satisfactorily been explained. Thus, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. Heard on review petition filed under O. XLVII, Rule 1 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking review of the order dated 7-8-2013 passed in W.P. No. 5656/12 by the learned single Judge. 5. Short facts of the case are that non-applicants (herein)/petitioners filed an application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar in respect of agriculture land bearing Survey Nos. 299, 300, 1189, 1190 of Gram Richha Lal Muha, Pargana, Mandsaur on 11-7-2001 with a prayer that the decree has been passed by the Civil Court in favour of their predecessor-in-title on 19-6-1978 in civil Suit No. 16-A/74. As per the decree, non-applicants are entitled to get their names mutated to the extent of 1/4th-1/4th. The application was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar on the ground of delay of 23 years and non-joinder of necessary party, against which an appeal was preferred before the SDO Mandsaur which was dismissed on 31-12-2002 and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was upheld. Thereafter the second appeal was preferred by the non-applicants against the aforesaid order before the Asstt. Commissioner Ujjain which was dismissed on 13-6-2003. Thereafter the second appeal was preferred by the non-applicants against the aforesaid order before the Asstt. Commissioner Ujjain which was dismissed on 13-6-2003. The revision was preferred against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue Gwalior by the non-applicants which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-12-2011. Thereafter the non applicants filed writ petition bearing No. 5656/12 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the aforesaid orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Learned single Judge vide order dated 7-8-2013 allowed the petition and set aside all the orders passed by the revenue Authorities with the direction that the non-applicants are entitled to get their names mutated on the basis of decree. It is also directed that on moving fresh application, Tehsildar shall decide the application, but will not dismiss the same on the ground of delay. Learned single Judge had passed the order in the absence of applicant herein as he was not present, though served. Against this order, the review petition is being filed by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction only when a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice is occasioned thereby. Learned single Judge while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction has not given any reason for setting aside the orders passed by the revenue Authorities. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agrawal, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374 . 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the impugned order a patent error has been committed which should be corrected by allowing the review petition. 8. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agrawal, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374 . 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the impugned order a patent error has been committed which should be corrected by allowing the review petition. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that admittedly in the instant case, non applicants have moved the application before Naib Tehsildar after lapse of 23 years whereas as per the provisions of section 109 of the MPLRC, mutation can be ordered only when the person makes the application for mutation after acquiring a right and such application was filed within 6 months from the date of such an acquisition, for this proposition he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Begum Suraiya Rashid v. State of M.P., reported in 2006(2) MPHT 272 (SC). 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of non applicants submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore the impugned cannot be reviewed. The applicant should have filed the appeal against the impugned order. 10. Learned counsel for the non applicants further submitted that for filing the application for mutation, there is no limitation is prescribed under section 109 and 110 of MPLRC. For this purpose he relied upon the judgment of Revenue Board in the case of Rambai v. Ganeshia, reported in 1974 R. N. 392. It is true that non-applicants have applied for mutation after long lapse of time, but it will not affect the rights of the non-applicants. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 11. We have gone through the record and the impugned order. 12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta (supra) laid down the parameters for exercising the power by the High court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we have examined the order. Learned single Judge while passing the impugned order has not examined the orders passed by the revenue Authorities. No reasons have been mentioned for setting aside the orders of revenue Authorities. In the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we have examined the order. Learned single Judge while passing the impugned order has not examined the orders passed by the revenue Authorities. No reasons have been mentioned for setting aside the orders of revenue Authorities. Without examining the orders of revenue Authorities, learned single Judge reached to the conclusion that the orders passed by the revenue Authorities are incorrect and set aside the orders. Not only this, he has specifically directed the Tehsildar to decide the fresh application of mutation and that will not be dismissed on the ground of delay. 13. We are of the view that the order is not sustainable in law. 14. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned single Judge has totally overlooked the scope and limitations of the supervisory jurisdiction. The order is a non-speaking order. This order is not consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Thus, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is allowed with the direction that original petition will revive on its original number and will be heard and disposed of by the writ Court as per law. We do not think proper to express any opinion at this stage about the merits of the case. Parties are free to agitate these questions before the writ Court. It is also made clear that any observations made hereinabove will not come in the way of the writ Court while deciding the writ petition afresh. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.