- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REVIEW PETITION NO. 604 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY BRIGADLER THE COMMANDANT PARACHUTE REGIMENT TRAINING CENTRE J.C. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARVIND KUMAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SEEMA D/O. LATE IMTHIYAZ AHMED NOW AGED 36 YEARS. 2. NADEEM S/O. LATE IMTHIYAZ AHMED NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. SMT. AMEENA BE W/O. ABDUL KARIM @ BASHU LAL NOW AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.11/1, 1ST STREET BRAD WAY STREET SHIVAJI NAGAR BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE - 560 051. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN M.F.A.NO.3130/2020 (MV-D) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the respondent in MFA.No.3130/2024 seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed in MFA.No.3130/2020 by this Court. 2. Learned ASG appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri K.S.Bheemaiah for review petitioner submits that notice has been taken out to the learned counsel appearing for respondents, who are the appellants-claimants before this Court and the tribunal respectively. This review petition is filed seeking to review the order to the limited extent where it is stated as filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle is not in dispute and not challenged, whereby - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 it can be said that the rider of the motor cycle has accepted the charges laid against him. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the motor cycle. 3. Learned ASG for review petitioner submits that notice has been served on the learned counsel for respondents-claimants. He further submits that the relief sought in this review petition would not alter the nature or outcome of the judgment. Therefore, he submits that this Court may proceed further, as the learned counsel has already been informed personally. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by this Court in MFA.No.3130/2020 and the review sought therein, it is seen, as submitted by the learned ASG for review petitioner that while passing the judgment in MFA.No.3130/2020, an error had occurred on the part of the review petitioner, who was the respondent in the Miscellaneous First Appeal, in not bringing to the notice of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 this Court the order of acquittal passed in favour of the review petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC by the order dated 11.02.2019. 5. Learned ASG for review petitioner further submits that while passing the judgment dated 16.01.2024 in MFA.No.3130/2020, the order of acquittal was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, he contends that there was an error on the part of the review petitioner in not placing the said fact before this Court at the time of disposal of MFA.No.3130/2020, particularly when the acquittal arose out of proceedings relating to the very same offences that led to filing of the claim petition before the tribunal and subsequently, culminated in the Miscellaneous First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned ASG for review petitioner further submits that by deleting the sentences in the judgment passed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 MFA No.3130/2020, neither the outcome of the judgment nor the award of compensation or enhancement thereof would be affected. Therefore, he contends that no prejudice, injustice or hardship would be caused to the respondents-claimants if the review petition is allowed to the limited extent as stated hereinabove. 7. Heard learned ASG for review petitioner. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the order passed in C.C.No.39104/2016, whereby the review petitioner - rider of the motor cycle - accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 9. Under the circumstance, the review sought by the learned ASG for review petitioner is only to the limited extent of deletion of the observation that, "filing of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle is not in dispute and not challenged, whereby, it can be said that the rider of the motor cycle had accepted the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 charges laid against him. Therefore, the negligence was rightly attributed against the rider of the motor cycle." 10. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid observation may not reflect the correct factual position, which was not brought to the notice of this Court. While considering a review petition, what is required to be examined is whether any material fact was not brought to the notice of the Court or whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record. If it is shown that an error came to be committed by this Court owing to the mistake or omission of counsel in not bringing relevant fact to the notice of the Court, the review petition can be entertained. 11. In the present case, I find considerable force in the contention of the learned ASG for review petitioner, who has brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid fact was not placed before this Court during the proceedings in MFA.No.3130/2020, which led to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 finding recorded therein. Prima facie, the said finding does not appear to be correct in view of the judgment produced in this review petition passed in C.C.No.39104/2016, whereby the review petitioner-rider of the motor cycle- accused was acquitted of the offences under the provisions of IPC vide order dated 11.02.2019, which is much prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment before this Court. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This review petition is allowed: ii. The judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed in MFA No.3130/2020 by this Court is reviewed to the limited extent as indicated hereinbelow. iii. It is deemed appropriate to delete the sentence in para-6, i.e., "filing of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle is not in dispute and not challenged, whereby it can be said that the rider of the motorcycle has accepted the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20332 RP No. 604 of 2025 charges laid against him. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the motorcycle" and accordingly, it is deleted, in view of the subsequent placing on record the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the review petitioner-rider of the motor cycle-accused. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6