Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... on 19 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010103872022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./93/2022
MITALI SONOWAL MECH AND 2 ORS
- W/O LATE LORENCH MECH RESIDENT OF KATUHA GAON, PS
BARBARUAH, DIST DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
2: SMTI JINIA MECH (MINOR)
W/O LATE LORENCH MECH
RESIDENT OF KATUHA GAON
PS BARBARUAH
DIST DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY PET. NO. 1
3: SRI CLARISH MECH
W/O LATE LORENCH MECH
RESIDENT OF KATUHA GAON
PS BARBARUAH
DIST DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY PET. NO.
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 3 ORS
DIBRUGARH DIVISION, DIST DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786001
2:SHRI RAJIB BAGREE
S/O LATE ROBIN BAGREE
RESIDENT OF MANCOTTA TEPOR GAON
PS AND DIST DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
786001
3:SRI PABITRA BAGREE
S/O LATE ROBIN BAGREE
Page No.# 2/6
RESIDENT OF MANCOTTA TEPOR GAON
PS AND DIST DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
786001
4:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
DIBRUGARH DIVISION
DIST DIBRUGARH
ASSAM 78600
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS
Advocate for the Respondent :
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Review Petitioners: Mr. R.C. Das,
Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Goswami,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2022.
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2022.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard the learned counsel Mr. R.C. Das appearing for the review
petitioners. Also heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami appearing for
the respondent(s) Insurance Company.
2. The present petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1of the Code
of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the order passed by this Court on
07.03.2022 in MAC Appeal No.270 of 2019.
Page No.# 3/6
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dibrugarh in MAC Case No.12
of 2017 awarded a compensation of Rs.26,40,400/- along with interest @
9% p.a. On appeal, this Court awarded a total compensation
Rs.44,49,903/-. Since the accident took place between two vehicles, the
respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay half of the said
compensation i.e. Rs.22,24,952/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
4. By showing a different calculation, the review petitioner submits that
the total compensation should have been Rs.78,07,550/-.
5. Now, the question arises whether the powers of review provided by
Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC can be applied in the present case. Order 47,
Rule 1 reads as under-
1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from
which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge
or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or
Page No.# 4/6
made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order may apply for a
review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by
some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to
the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can
present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for there
view.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the
judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a
ground for the review of such judgment.]
6. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket
Club & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 741], it has been held that the Order 47
Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review.
Such an application for review would be maintainable not only
upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or
when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but
also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for
any other sufficient reason.
7. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs [ (2009)14
SCC 663 ). the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of review in
this way -
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error
Page No.# 5/6
apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of
record must be such an error which must strike one on mere
looking at the record and would not require any long drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may be
conceivable be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason
which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by
a court or even an Advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine `actus curiae neminem gravabit'."
8. The phrase 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of
the Court shall prejudice no one. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs
Motilal (D) Th.Lrs (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
a mistake on the part of the court may also call for a review of the
order.
9. The power of review under the Code of Civil Procedure is very
limited. In the guise of a review petition, an appeal cannot be
entertained. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
power of review can be exercised only when there an error apparent on
the face of the record.
10. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of the
record. Therefore, the review petition is not maintainable in law and
Page No.# 6/6
stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
