Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Kuldeep Singh Tomar on 6 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MA No. 542 of 2006
(SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs KULDEEP SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS)
Dated : 06-04-2023
Mr. R.P.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Shrinivas Gajendragadkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
By filing LA. No. 1261 of 2023, an application for
review/modification of order dated 20.2.2023, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that due to typographical error in the penultimate paragraph
of order dated 20.2.2023 passed in this case, it has been mentioned that "The
enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall not carry any interest, however, if
the respondents fail to make the payment of compensation within a period of
12 months from today, then the enhanced amount of award shall carry penal
interest at the rate of 6% per annum." while it should have been "the
enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondents within a
period of 12 weeks and shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization." During the
course of arguments, additional prayer has been made by learned counsel for
the appellant that in the third page of the order dated 20.2.2023 due to
typographical error, the enhanced amount has also wrongly been typed in
word as "Rs. One Lakh only" in place of "Rs. Two Lakh only". Hence,
prayed for review/correction in the order dated 20.2.2023.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company
vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant
and argued that in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors; Civil Appeal No. 5245
.3, ALOK KUMAR
2023.04.10
10:36:06
+05'30'
Sh 11.0.23
2 of 3
of 1997, decided on 24.10.19997, the review cannot be allowed in respect to
interest on the enhanced amount and time period for depositing the
compensation. He further submitted that the insurance company has already
sent the cheque in compliance of the order of this Court, therefore, no
correction / review is warranted in respect to the time period for depositing
the enhanced amount.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the order dated
20.2.2023.
So far as review/correction in respect to the prayer of learned counsel
for the appellant with regard to interest on the enhanced compensation
amount and the time period for depositing the compensation amount is
concemed, it is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
In the present case, time period for payment of compensation amount
as well as direction for awarding rate of interest on the enhanced
compensation amount is concerned, they do not come within the purview of
any error apparent on the face of record or result of a typographical error.
Consequently, I.A. No. LA. No. 1261 of 2023 is hereby rejected.
So far as typographical error in respect to mentioning of enhanced
compensation amount in words as "Rs.One Lakh only" after mention of
enhanced compensation amount in numerical as "Rs.2,00,000/-" in page 3 of
the order dated 20.2.2023 is concerned, the same appears to be typographical
error on the face of record, therefore it is directed that in page 3 of the
order dated 20.2.2023 "Rs.One Lakh only" be read as "Rs. Two Lakh
only".
3 of 3
This order passed today be read in conjunction with the order dated
20.2.2023 passed in present miscellaneous appeal.
Matter be consigned to record room.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
