Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan vs Punjab Singh Baghel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3889 MP

                                  1
                                                  R.P. No. 467/2021
             (Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan Vs. Punjab Singh Baghel & others)


            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  BENCH AT GWALIOR

                           SINGLE BENCH:


                   Review Petition No. 467/2021
                       Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan
                                 Vs.
                    Punjab Singh Baghel & others
                      ********************
CORAM

           Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                      ********************
Appearance

        Smt. Meena Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri S.N. Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.
                      ********************
Whether approved for reporting : No

                      ********************
Reserved on : 07/07/2021


                             ORDER

(Passed on 03/08/2021)

Petitioner has filed this review petition under Order 47 Rule

1 of CPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 29/04/2021 passed

in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1038/2017 (National Insurance Co.

Ltd. Vs. Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan & others).

2. The facts of the case in short are that respondent

No.3/Insurance Company filed a miscellaneous appeal before this

R.P. No. 467/2021 (Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan Vs. Punjab Singh Baghel & others)

Court taking an exception to the order dated 18/07/2017 passed by

Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Claim

Case No.1800187/2016, by which the Claims Tribunal had held

that the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of

Rs.16,88,000/- along with interest and liability as to pay aforesaid

amount of compensation has been fastened on the respondents.

This Court has partly allowed aforesaid M.A. No.1038/2017 vide

judgment dated 29/04/2021 and reduced the total compensation

from Rs.16,88,000/- to Rs.16,30,200/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cross-

objection filed by the petitioner has not been taken into

consideration by this Court while passing judgment dated

29/04/2021. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has

also ignored the important factual aspect as well as the settled

principle of law while passing the impugned award. Hence,

learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this petition by

reviewing the judgment dated 29/04/2021 passed in M.A.

No.1038/2017 taking into consideration the cross-objection filed

by the petitioner.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that there is no error on

the face of the record and, therefore, no interference in the

impugned judgment is called for.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the

R.P. No. 467/2021 (Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan Vs. Punjab Singh Baghel & others)

impugned judgment.

6. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC reads as under :-

"47. 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 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, or 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 made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or 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 the review.

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."

7. The explanation of Order 47 Rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says

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

R.P. No. 467/2021 (Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan Vs. Punjab Singh Baghel & others)

not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

8. In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket

Club (AIR 2005 SC 592), it is observed that "the words

"sufficient reason" occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a

misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An

application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the

doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'". Similarly, in Union of

India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008 (Gau) 161, it

is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope

of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the

review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In

Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported

in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that scope of

review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions

of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further

observed that review of an order is permissible only if some

mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to

be decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an

erroneous decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each

decision.

9. The scope of compass of review of an order by a Court of

Civil Judicature, is circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code

which provides that a review of an order is permissible upon a

discovery of new and important matter of evidence. But in the

R.P. No. 467/2021 (Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan Vs. Punjab Singh Baghel & others)

present case no new and important matter has been brought before

the Court by the petitioner. It is also well settled that only errors

apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such

errors must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are

necessary to pin point those errors. ( See Abhijit Tea Company

Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal

316).

10. In the light of above citations, it is well settled that the

scope of review is very limited. There is no error apparent on the

face of record. This Court has already considered all the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The point raised in

cross-objection had also been considered in the light of judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to amount of

compensation. It is also well settled that the provisions made

under Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation shall be

restricted to the compensation only. These provisions are required

to be considered carefully by the Court while considering the loss

occurred due to accident.

11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, no case for reviewing

the order dated 29/04/2021 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.

1038/2017 is made out. Consequently, this review petition fails

and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Shubhankar*

Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2021.08.03 17:31:04 +05'30'