UNION OF INDIAversusMUKTABEN PREMJIBHAI KOLI

     C/MCA/2030/2026                                ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 2030 of 2026
                          In R/FIRST APPEAL/3733/2012

==========================================================
                              UNION OF INDIA
                                   Versus
                       MUKTABEN PREMJIBHAI KOLI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 10/08/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER


1.    The present application is            led by the applicant seeking
following reliefs:

       “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Misc. Civil
       Application in the interest of justice;

       (B)     Your Lordships may be further pleased to review/recall the
       order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 14.10.2025 in the interest
       of justice to the extent of awarding compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-
       with interest as per judgment of Radha Yadav supra.

       (C)    Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and
       further reliefs as may be deemed /t and proper by this Hon’ble
       Court in the interest of justice;”



2.    Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that while passing the impugned judgment dated
14.10.2025, this Court has not properly applied the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha



                                   Page 1 of 3
     C/MCA/2030/2026                            ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 and therefore the impugned
judgment deserves to be reviewed/recalled.


3.    Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


4.    I have perused the material available on record and the
averments made in the application. This Court had observed in
paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of its impugned judgment that referring and
relying upon the decision of Union of India vs Rina Devi reported in
2019 (3) SCC 572, the First Appeal no. 3733 of 2012           led by the
original claimants is allowed.


5.    At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the recent
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata v. Union
of India & Another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
wherein it was contended by the learned counsel that the amended
amount of compensation would be applicable only to accidents
occurring on or after 01.01.2017 and that, in respect of accidents
occurring prior thereto, the claimants would be entitled to
compensation of only ₹4,00,000/-, along with interest. However, the
date of the accident was 28.11.2015 yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court
awarded compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 8%, as observed in paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the facts of the case and
the law laid down in the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court,
including the judgment in Rina Devi(supra), discussed the earlier
pronouncements on the subject and ultimately allowed the appeal.


6.    In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the present application seeking recall/review of the impugned


                                 Page 2 of 3
      C/MCA/2030/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




judgment passed in the First Appeal, no illegality is found on the part
of this Court. Therefore, while exercising the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, it would be appropriate to refer to
(1) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree
Chaitanya Constructions vs. Sudhir Poonamchand Prakash and others
reported        in     (2020)        17      SCC        119,      more        particularly          para
nos.10,11,12,13; (2) the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shanti Conductors Privcate Limited vs. Assam State Electricity
Board and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, more particularly
para no. 25; (3) the decision of this Court dated 11.3.2022 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 491 of 2021 in Special Civil Application
No.2382 of 2017.



7.       Considering the averments and explanation given in the
application and the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the present application seeking review/recall of judgment passed by
this Court in First Appeal no. 3733 of 2012 dated 14.10.2025 is not
required to be interfered with while exercising the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the present
application is rejected.

                                                             (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/08/2026 18:37:04




                                               Page 3 of 3