The Single Judge dismissed a review petition filed by the petitioner against a compensation award enhanced by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the review petition could not be allowed to argue the case afresh under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 16 of 2015
---- Petitioner
Versus
Respondents No. 1 to 4 are R/o Village Nayak Bandha, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur C.G.
---- Respondents
: Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
For Applicant : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
05/05 /2023
2
Heard.
"15. After deducting Rs. 3,92,325/- awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,88,975/-. The total compensation of Rs. 3,92,325/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,81,300/-. The claimants will be entitled to Rs. 2,88,975/- in addition what is already awarded. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
3
herein showed that they did not press any application under order 41 rule 27 of CPC wherein the license was said to be in existence with endorsement.
4
by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Jyoti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be permitted to argue the entire case afresh amounting to an appeal in disguise.
Whether an application seeking correction of mistake committed in the appellate court's order is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether an error not self-evident that requires reasoning to detect qualifies as error apparent on the face of the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V.Vinod Kumar Rawat and OrsReferred¶31
Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V.Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020, dated 03.11.2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Sharma
Smt. Y .Rewati Rao
Ku. Y. Nistha Rao
Ku. Y. Durga Rao
Ku. Y. Versha Rao
United India Insurance Company Limited
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
