(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dtd. 16/7/2020 passed in R.P.No.09/2019 filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of CPC, 1908 to review the order dtd. 19/9/2011 passed in ECA No. 6/2017 is rejected.
(2.) Heard Shri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein initiated proceedings before the First Additional Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, under Sec. 22, (3) 2 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 alleging that one Dharanesh husband of first respondent herein died while working as a Writer under the petitioner and compensation was claimed for the death of Dharanesh during the course of employment under the petitioner. The petitioner herein appeared before the trial Court and contended that the he is called by two names i.e., Sigbathulla and Showkat Ali. It is the contention of the petitioner that the policy was issued in the name of Sigbathulla, but, before the trial Court, the respondents have made Showkat Ali as party - respondent No.1. The trial Court on considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that there is no policy issued in favour of the petitioner by name Showkat Ali and therefore, it directed the petitioner i.e., the respondent No.1 before it Showkat Ali as a owner, to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed a review petition stating that Showkat Ali is also called as Sigbathulla. The trial Court rejected the said contention and dismissed the review petition. Against which the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.