Chikkarakamma @ Chikkaramakka vs M V Subramanya
2022 Latest Caselaw 5481 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                            AND

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

        R.P.No.122/2020 IN M.F.A.No.3193/2014 (MV)


BETWEEN :
CHIKKARAKAMMA @ CHIKKARAMAKKA
W/o KARIAYAIAH @ KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT No.171, DESHAHALLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.                                 ...PETITIONER

              (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)


AND :
1.      M V SUBRAMANYA
        S/O M V VENAKTAPPA
        PROP SRI UDAYA RANGA MOTOR SERIVCE
        MALAVALLI TOWN
        MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401

2.      THE MANAGER
        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
        REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144
        SHIVARAM COMPLEX
        M G ROAD
        BENGALURU - 560001                 ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI.L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R-2;
 V/O DATED 05.03.2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)
                        -2-




     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER
PASSED IN MFA NO. 3193/2014 DISPOSED OFF ON 15/11/2018
AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY IS ONLY
LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
H.P.SANDESH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

This review petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking review of the judgment dated 15.11.2018

passed by this Court in M.F.A.3193/2014.

2. Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the

counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The present petition is filed through a

different learned counsel other than the learned counsel

who argued the matter in MFA proceedings seeking

review of the judgment passed in MFA No.3193/2014,

wherein this Court has disposed of the matter on

merits. The grounds now taken in the review petition

were not urged before this Court when the matter was

taken up before the Court and this Court considering

the arguments addressed by the earlier learned counsel

who appeared on behalf of the appellants passed the

judgment on merits. There is no material on record to

show that there is an error apparent on the face of the

record. When the party has changed the counsel and

engaged a new counsel and urging altogether new

grounds before this Court in the review petition, the

same amounts to re-hearing the matter, considering the

matter afresh is not permissible in review petition filed

under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Hence, we do not find

any grounds to entertain the review petition.

4. Apart from that, there is delay of 401 days in

filing this review petition. The order was passed on

15.11.2018 and the present review petition is filed on

21.01.2020 i.e., after almost 1 and ½ years. The reason

assigned in the application is that her husband was an

illiterate and he was looking after the affairs of the case.

No satisfactory reasons are assigned in the application

for condonation of delay. There is no merit in

considering the application for condoning the delay of

401 days also.

In view of the discussions made above,

I.A.No.1/2020 as well as Review Petition stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.