Dismissed

Sanjay v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jan 2024REVP/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a review petition filed after an inordinate delay of 1861 days. The court found the applicant negligent regarding previous notices and barred the petition due to limitation, applying principles from Shri Ram Sahu regarding review jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay application dismissed; review petition dismissed as barred by limitation.

Sanjay Vs Bajaj Allianz General… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Review Petition No. 13 of 2023

¶5

Sanjay, S/o Jhumuklal Soni, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Andhiyarkhor, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Office at Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Jeevan, S/o Patiram Sahu, Aged about 36 Years, Village Attargawan, Tahsil and PS Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyaya, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

23-01-2024

¶15

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition as well as review petition for review of the order dated 01.11.2017 passed in MAC No. 68 of 2009. Para 6 of the said order reads as under :-

¶16

“6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidence which have come on record by the office of R.T.O. examined before the Tribunal has also the document, which has subsequently brought on record by the Insurance Company in their application dated 23.01.2009 showing that the number of the license shows is to have been

¶17

¶18

issued to one Saroj Kumar Choudhari, this Court is of the opinion that there is a sufficient force which has been put by the Insurace Company, so far as the contentions is concerned, the appeal of the Insurance Company thus deserves to be and is allowed in part to the extent and it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal first and shall have the liberty of granting the said amount recovered from the Owner.”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for applicant / owner would submit that applicant / owner was not aware about passing of the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 68 of 2009, as notice was not served to him. It is further submitted that when respondent No. 1 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company filed application for execution before the concerned Claims Tribunal and notice in that execution proceedings was served to the applicant, then only he came to know about passing of the order dated 01.11.2017 in MAC No. 68 of 2009, thereafter, the applicant filed instant review petition with the delay of 1861 days, therefore, the same may be condoned and review petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/Insurance Company would submit that in M.A. (C) No. 68 of 2009, notice was served to the brother of the petitioner, despite that he did not appear before the Court, therefore, order dated 01.11.2017 was passed by this Court in M.A. (C) No. 68 of 2009. She would further submit that since vide aforesaid order, Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 2 and then recover the

¶21

¶22

same from applicant - Sanjay, who is owner/driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-LH-2388, therefore, Insurance Company had sent notices dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure A-3) and 05.01.2022 (Annexure A-4) to the petitioner, despite that the petitioner did not respond to the notice and only when execution proceedings was initiated against him and notice was sent to him in that proceedings, then only, the petitioner has filed instant review petition with an inordinate delay of 1861 days without showing any sufficient cause. It is further submitted that the ground, on which, review has been sought, cannot be considered in instant review petition, as the petitioner has not stated any apparent mistake in the order to be reviewed, rather he has raised ground of procedural lacuna to review aforesaid order dated 1.11.2017, which would amount to rehearing of the appeal, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has extended his support to the submissions made by counsel for respondent No. 1. However, he raised objection stating that there is inordinate delay of 1861 days in filing the review petition and no appropriate reasons have been assigned for the same.

¶24

At the outset, it is mentionable here that the order sought to be reviewed had been passed by this Court on 1.11.2017 in MAC No. 68 of 2009. Perusal of the record of MAC No. 68/2009 would go to show that notice was sent to petitioner – Sanjay, which was served upon his brother – Vijay Soni through a Process Server, Civil Court Bemetara. In this regard, concerned Process Server has also enclosed “Hukmnama”

¶25

¶26

alongwith service report, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that on 19.02.2009 when he went to serve notice to the applicant at village Andhiyarkhore, Tahsil Nawagarh, then brother of petitioner namely Vijay Soni told that he had gone to some other village, therefore, notice was served to his brother Vijay Soni.

¶27

6 . In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that despite service of notice to the petitioner, he did not appear, therefore, order dated 01.11.2017, which has been sought to be reviewed has been passed and after the huge delay of 1861 days, the petitioner has filed instant petition to review the impugned order.

¶28

Respondent No. 1 – Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company had issued notices dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure A-3) & 5.1.2022 (Annexure A-4) to the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation paid by it to respondent No. 2/claimant, but petitioner did not respond the aforesaid notices and he came in action only after service of notice to him in an execution proceedings, as has been stated by counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the aforesaid conduct of petitioner shows that he was completely negligent to the notices issued to him by this Court as well as by respondent No. 1 / Insurance Company.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner and not finding any good ground to condone the inordinate delay of 1861 days in filing the instant review petition, as no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for such huge delay, rather aforesaid facts shows his negligent conduct towards notices issued to him, therefore, he is not found to be a person competent to get liberal view of the Court.

¶30

¶31

It is also pertinent to note here that the petitioner has sought relief to review the order dated 1.11.2017 passed by this Court in MAC No. 68 of 2009, but it has not been stated by him that there is any apparent mistake in the impugned order, rather aforesaid order has been sought to be reviewed on the ground of alleged procedural lacuna.

¶32

It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is unsustainable in law.

¶33

The Supreme Court in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V.Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors¹ , has laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.

¶34

Considering every aspects of the matter, in the instant case, the

¶35

1 (2020) SCC Online SC 896

¶36

¶37

applicant could not explain inordinate delay of 1861 days in filing the review petition. Therefore, delay occurred in filing the review petition cannot be condoned. Accordingly, IA No. 1/2023, application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is dismissed.

¶38

Consequently, review petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶41

Amit/-

Sanjay v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Yadav Vs State Bank of India

Lakhan Vs Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Ramesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ganga Dewangan Vs Deepak Kumar Dewangan

Indrawati Singh Vs Sri Remigius Ekka

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh