- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 200012 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, No. 2-2-219, 1ST FLOOR, KONDAGAL ROAD, OPP: SARASWATI THEATRE, TANDUR - 501 141. DIST VIAKARABAD T.S. PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP: SANGAM THEATRE, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 101. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: 1. NINGAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC :AGRICULTURE, R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR 2. BHIMRAO, S/O. NINGAPPA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR 3. RAMESH, S/O. NINGAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR 4. MALLESH, S/O. NINGAPPA AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR 5. VEERAMMA, W/O. REVANAPPA (D/O NINGAPPA) AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VITTALPUR, TQ: CHITGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR 6. SRINIVAS, S/O. NINGAPPA AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O VITTAPUR, TQ: CHITTAGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR MINOR U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT No.1 7. BASAWARAJ, S/O. NINGAPPA, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O VITTAPUR, TQ: CHITTAGUPPA- 585 412, DIST: BIDAR MINOR U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT No.1 8. SUNILKUMAR S/O LAXMANRAO AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 1/5/362, BOVI GALLI, CHINCHOLI - 585 301, DIST: KALABURAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 (OWNER OF THE OFFENDED CRUISER JEEP BEARING NO. KA33 M2757) &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE (VC)) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/S. XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW AND RECALL THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MFA NO.202260/2022 DATED 26.03.2024 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT AND HEAR BOTH THE MFA NOS. 202260/2022 ON MERITS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Respondent No.2 in MFA No.202260/2022 filed the present review petition seeking the Court to review and recall the judgment passed in MFA No.202260/2022 dated 26.03.2024 and to hear the appeal again on merits. 2. Heard Sri.Sudarshan.M, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.2 as well as Sri.Santhosh Biradar, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/appellant Nos.1 to 7. Both the learned counsel appear through video conference. 3. Sri.Sudarshan.M, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court disposed of the subject appeal on 26.03.2024 on merits. Learned counsel submits that the appeal is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein i.e., the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation. This Court allowed the appeal in part and the amount granted by the Tribunal was enhanced to certain extent. Learned counsel submits that the insurance company i.e., the petitioner herein also filed a separate appeal but the same was not brought to the knowledge of this Court during the course of hearing in MFA No.202260/2022. The Court thus disposed of the said appeal. Learned counsel contends that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner challenged its liability to pay compensation and therefore, the said appeal filed by the petitioner/insurance company as well as the appeal filed by the claimants are required to be heard together, but that was not done and therefore, the judgment rendered in MFA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 No.202260/2022 that was filed by the claimants is required to be set aside. 4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, Sri.Santhosh Biradar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/appellants/claimants submits that on hearing both sides the appeal was disposed of on merits. Learned counsel contends that there are no grounds either to recall the judgment that was rendered or to modify the judgment and therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sudarshan.M during the course of hearing submitted that the petitioner/insurance company filed an appeal on 06.10.2023. The present appeal i.e., MFA No.202260/2022 which was filed by the claimants was disposed of on 26.03.2024. Therefore, the petitioner who filed separate appeal should have brought to the knowledge of this Court about the pendency of the appeal that was filed by it and should have taken steps for getting both the matters clubbed. But the petitioner did not do so. That apart, in the appeal filed by the claimants i.e., MFA No.202260/2022, this Court dealt with the issue whether the claimants are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 entitled for any enhancement in compensation. Only that issue was dealt with. Therefore, nothing prevents the petitioner herein to proceed with his appeal wherein he challenged his liability to pay compensation. 6. The grounds basing on which the judgment rendered by the Court can be reviewed are limited. The petitioner who moves an application seeking the Court to review the judgment passed on merits is required to satisfy the Court that there exists the circumstances that are envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for the Court to review its judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which even after exercise of due diligence could not be produced by him or that such matter or evidence was not within his knowledge at the time when the judgment was pronounced. Also it is not the case of the petitioner that on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record there is requirement for the Court to review its own judgment. No other sufficient reason is projected or made out by the petitioner herein. Therefore, this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5472 RP No. 200012 of 2025 Court is of the view that the review petition cannot be entertained. Resultantly, the review petition stands dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2025 filed for stay stands dismissed. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1