Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt Laxmi Bai on 11 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21344
1 RP-1636-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1636 of 2025
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SMT LAXMI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Badri Nath Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Petitioner/Insurance Company has filed this petition seeking review of
order dated 19.08.2025 passed by this Court in MA No.1172/2013 with
submission that v i d e the order impugned, this Court has granted
compensation towards consortium @ 48,000/- to each of the claimants and
Rs.36,000/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses which is
contrary to the principle of law laid down in the case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
which it was fixed for compensation towards consortium of Rs. 40,000/- per
head and Rs.30,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate.
2. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is very limited and it
may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of
record. Power of review is not to be confused with appellate power and the review
petition cannot be decided like a regular intra-Court appeal. The findings recorded
in the main proceedings cannot be examined de novo in exercise of review
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21344
2 RP-1636-2025
jurisdiction and every factual or legal error cannot be made subject-matter of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The scope of review before this Court is
limited to the extent of grounds available under Order 47 rule 1 CPC which are
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
''Order XLVII
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
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 applied 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.]''
3. In the matter of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down
the following principles ''when review will not be maintainable'':-
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21344
3 RP-1636-2025
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
4. A bare perusal of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC as well as the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reveals that none of the grounds
available for review in the present matter. In view of above, the impugned award
passed by this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the
record, warranting review/recall of the same by this Court.
5. Accordingly, review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
