O R D E R:

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.S.Dilip Jaya Ram as well as learned counsel for the respondent Mr.K.Venkata Rao.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC to review the Orders passed by this Court in Tr.CMP No.167 of 2023, dated 17.07.2023, on the ground that error apparent on the face of the record occurred with regard to date of filing of MVOP No.1248 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. It is also stated that this Court ought not to have entertained Tr.CMP under Section 24 of the CPC, seeking transfer of case from one State to another State.

3. For which, the learned counsel for the respondent filed his affidavit, stating that while drafting Transfer petition, an error occurred with regard to mentioning date of filing of MVOP No.1248 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad as 08.06.2018 instead of 12.06.2018. The learned counsel also stated that he apologize for the mistake committed by him while mentioning the dates of filing of both the cases.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that MVOP No.16 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh is the first claim petition, which filed on 11.06.2018, whereas MVOP No.1248 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad is filed on 12.06.2018, which is subsequent case. He would further submit that as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gohar Mohammed. Appellant vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others. Respondents, dated 15.12.2022 the petitioner has to file necessary petition before the Registrar General of High Court of Telangana to transfer MVOP No.1248 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad to XIII Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet. He prays to review the Orders passed by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner would submit that mistake crept in while typing the date of filing of the case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, which they have mentioned as 08.06.2018 instead of 12.06.2018. He would further fairly submit that MVOP No.1248 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad filed on 12.06.2018 not on

08.06.2018. He prays to pass necessary Orders.

6. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

"Whether there are grounds to review the Orders passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.167 of 2023 dated 17.07.2023?”?"

7. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which reads as under:

“Section 114: Review.

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—

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

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

“Order 41, Rule 1.

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 a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise