Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uzer Khan Minor Through Natural ... vs Faruq on 5 August, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
REVIEW PETITION NO. 449 OF 2022
Between:-
UZER KHAN MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER AZAM
KHAN S/O SALLEM KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOR R/O GRAM MANAWAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(MANISH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER .
HIMANSHU PALIWAL, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
FARUQ S/O IQRAR MOHAMMAD, AGED
1. ABOUT 24 YEARS, GRAM UMARBAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
FAIZAL KHAN S/O MUBARIK KHAN 147,
2.
RAJENDRA MARG (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL MANAGER THROUGH
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
3. CO. LTD. 2ND FLOOR, COMMERCE
HOUSE, 7 RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
This review petition coming on this day for admission, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) has been preferred by petitioner seeking review of the order dated 7.3.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 814/2022 by this Court whereby it has been held that if the award is less than Rs. 1 lakh, right of appeal against such award is not available.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed Misc. Appeal No. 814/2022 against the award passed by MACT Manawar District Dhar in claim case no. 346/2018 and this Court has disposed of the appeal on the ground of maintainability that the amount awarded was less than Rs. 1 lakh and as per section 173(2) right to appeal against such award is not available and has declined admission. But the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Vs. B.C.M. Higher Secondary School reported in 2008 ACJ 1421 it has been described that whether value put forth in appeal would be the amount in dispute and appeal would be maintainable only if the amount in dispute is more than Rs. 10,000/- held: yes. He submits that the judgment passed in case of Ghanshyam Vs.Additional District Judge and others by Hon'ble High court of Rajasthan (2009) ACJ 1946) clearly states that it is not the award that is referred to in Section 173(2) of Motor Vehicles 3 Act but the amount in dispute. The proposed amendment has not been notified by the government through official gazette notification. The fact of amendment is not retrospective but is prospective in nature and the cause of action in present case arises on 2.4.2018 i.e. prior to the date of amendment. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon order of this court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrikant and others reported in 2007 ACJ 2809 order dated 25.6.2008 passed in MA No. 2110/2008 in the matter of Smt. Supriya Kathane Vs. Shri Lal Singh. Hence he prays that the order dated 7.3.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 814/2022 may be reviewed and it may be held that Misc. Appeal is maintainable.
The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:-
When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 4 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
When the review will not be maintainable:
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(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 meres 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."
It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the 5 appeal.
The law is well settled in as much as the power of review is available only when there is error apparent on the face of record and not on erroneous decision. If the party is aggrieved by judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, the remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. It is also well settled that scope of review is very limited, the appeal could not be re-argued on merit and another order could not be substituted in place of the order passed after hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeal.
In the present case, this court had passed the order dated 7.3.2022 on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2003 SC 1561 and this court had passed detailed order after considering all the facts and also considering the legal provisions.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has no ground to stand. There is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Hence this review petition has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ Digitally signed by BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Date: 2022.08.05 19:32:02 +05'30'