ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this review petition under Order 47 rule 1 of CPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1038/2017 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brakhbhan @ Brajbhan & others).

2. The facts of the case in short are that respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed a miscellaneous appeal before this Court taking an exception to the order dated 18.7.2017 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Claim Case No.1800187/2016, by which the Claims Tribunal had held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.16,88,000/- along with interest and liability as to pay aforesaid amount of compensation has been fastened on the respondents. This Court has partly allowed aforesaid M.A. No.1038/2017 vide judgment dated 29.4.2021 and reduced the total compensation from Rs.16,88,000/- to Rs.16,30,200/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that crossobjection filed by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by this Court while passing judgment dated 29.4.2021. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has also ignored the important factual aspect as well as the settled principle of law while passing the impugned award. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow this petition by reviewing the judgment dated 29.4.2021 passed in M.A. No.1038/2017 taking into consideration the cross-objection filed by the petitioner.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company has submitted that there is no error on the face of the record and, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment.

6. Order 47 rule 1 CPC reads as under :--

"47. Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved, -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation-- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”

7. The explanation of Order 47 rule 1, sub-rule (2) CPC says the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

8. In Board of Control of Cricket India v. Netaji Cricket Club [(AIR 2005 SC 592)], it is observed that “the words “sufficient reason” occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'”. Similarly, in Union of India v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008 (Gau) 161, it is observed