Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Ningappa on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
RP No. 200012 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 200012 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
No. 2-2-219, 1ST FLOOR,
KONDAGAL ROAD, OPP: SARASWATI THEATRE,
TANDUR - 501 141.
DIST VIAKARABAD T.S.
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: SANGAM THEATRE,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE (VC))
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. NINGAPPA
S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC :AGRICULTURE,
R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
2. BHIMRAO,
S/O. NINGAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
RP No. 200012 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
3. RAMESH,
S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
4. MALLESH,
S/O. NINGAPPA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
5. VEERAMMA,
W/O. REVANAPPA (D/O NINGAPPA)
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
6. SRINIVAS,
S/O. NINGAPPA
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O VITTAPUR, TQ: CHITTAGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
MINOR U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT No.1
7. BASAWARAJ,
S/O. NINGAPPA,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O VITTAPUR, TQ: CHITTAGUPPA- 585 412,
DIST: BIDAR
MINOR U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT No.1
8. SUNILKUMAR
S/O LAXMANRAO
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 1/5/362, BOVI GALLI,
CHINCHOLI - 585 301, DIST: KALABURAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
RP No. 200012 of 2025
HC-KAR
(OWNER OF THE OFFENDED CRUISER JEEP
BEARING NO. KA33 M2757)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE (VC))
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/S. XLVII RULE 1 R/W
SEC. 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW AND RECALL THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN MFA NO.202260/2022 DATED
26.03.2024 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT AND HEAR BOTH
THE MFA NOS. 202260/2022 ON MERITS TO MEET THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
Respondent No.2 in MFA No.202260/2022 filed the
present review petition seeking the Court to review and recall
the judgment passed in MFA No.202260/2022 dated
26.03.2024 and to hear the appeal again on merits.
2. Heard Sri.Sudarshan.M, learned counsel for the
petitioner/respondent No.2 as well as Sri.Santhosh Biradar,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
HC-KAR
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/appellant Nos.1 to 7.
Both the learned counsel appear through video conference.
3. Sri.Sudarshan.M, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that this Court disposed of the subject appeal on
26.03.2024 on merits. Learned counsel submits that the appeal
is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein i.e., the claimants
seeking enhancement in compensation. This Court allowed the
appeal in part and the amount granted by the Tribunal was
enhanced to certain extent. Learned counsel submits that the
insurance company i.e., the petitioner herein also filed a
separate appeal but the same was not brought to the
knowledge of this Court during the course of hearing in MFA
No.202260/2022. The Court thus disposed of the said appeal.
Learned counsel contends that in the appeal filed by the
petitioner, the petitioner challenged its liability to pay
compensation and therefore, the said appeal filed by the
petitioner/insurance company as well as the appeal filed by the
claimants are required to be heard together, but that was not
done and therefore, the judgment rendered in MFA
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
HC-KAR
No.202260/2022 that was filed by the claimants is required to
be set aside.
4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made,
Sri.Santhosh Biradar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
7/appellants/claimants submits that on hearing both sides the
appeal was disposed of on merits. Learned counsel contends
that there are no grounds either to recall the judgment that
was rendered or to modify the judgment and therefore, the
review petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sudarshan.M
during the course of hearing submitted that the
petitioner/insurance company filed an appeal on 06.10.2023.
The present appeal i.e., MFA No.202260/2022 which was filed
by the claimants was disposed of on 26.03.2024. Therefore, the
petitioner who filed separate appeal should have brought to the
knowledge of this Court about the pendency of the appeal that
was filed by it and should have taken steps for getting both the
matters clubbed. But the petitioner did not do so. That apart, in
the appeal filed by the claimants i.e., MFA No.202260/2022,
this Court dealt with the issue whether the claimants are
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
HC-KAR
entitled for any enhancement in compensation. Only that issue
was dealt with. Therefore, nothing prevents the petitioner
herein to proceed with his appeal wherein he challenged his
liability to pay compensation.
6. The grounds basing on which the judgment
rendered by the Court can be reviewed are limited. The
petitioner who moves an application seeking the Court to
review the judgment passed on merits is required to satisfy the
Court that there exists the circumstances that are envisaged
under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for the Court to review its
judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which even
after exercise of due diligence could not be produced by him or
that such matter or evidence was not within his knowledge at
the time when the judgment was pronounced. Also it is not the
case of the petitioner that on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of record there is requirement for the
Court to review its own judgment. No other sufficient reason is
projected or made out by the petitioner herein. Therefore, this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472
HC-KAR
Court is of the view that the review petition cannot be
entertained.
Resultantly, the review petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.2/2025 filed for stay stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
