11.2025 Date of decision Smt. Anna Anna Mary Daniel & Ors. v. Manjeet an jeet & Ors.

iate Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate to seek seek an adjournment in the said matter. Le r. Learned counsel submits that afte after hearing of the matter his associate w iate was under the impression that t that the two applications, listed alongwith with the main appeal, were only di dismissed. Learned counsel submits tha its that there had been sufficient materi material on record, on the basis of which, the a . h, the appeal could have been allowed. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 022 RA-CR-163-2025 in FAO-1401-2022 2 I have heard the Review Appli Applicants and gone through the case file an file and the order dated 02.09.2025. Perusal of the order dated 02.09

02.09.2025 shows that the same has been pa een passed on merits after hearing lear ng learned counsel for the parties at considera nsiderable length and perusing the recor e record carefully. For reference, paras 2, 3 , 3 and 4 of the said order dated 02 ted 02.9.2025 are reproduced as follows :- “xxx xxx

2. Learned counsel nsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribuna unal was in error in dismissing the Claim Petition as th as the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are b re based on conjectures and surmises without ap appreciating the evidence produced by the appella llants. The findings given by the Id. Tribunal are als re also wrong when it has been observed that the Invest nvestigation Officer of the FIR was not examined. It is It is submitted that the challan presented in the FIR w R was exhibited before the Id. Tribunal and the FIR N IR No. 329 of 18.6.2017 was also exhibited on record cord as Ex. P1. It is a matter of fact that accident had be d been caused in the evening of

17.6.2017 and the FIR IR has been registered on the night of same date. Th . Thus, there was no delay in registration of FIR. Th . The charge sheet was also produced on record a rd as Ex. P-2. On 27.6.2017 respondent no. 1 was a as also arrested, and owner of the offending vehicle has e has stated that at the said time his driver Manjit was d as driving the vehicle. In fact, the report of the Mechan chanic was also obtained after near about 10 days of t of the accident. The mechanic had given a report th rt that the break, clutch and VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 022 RA-CR-163-2025 in FAO-1401-2022 3 steering of the vehicl ehicle are correct, however, Mechanic has not given iven any report regarding outer condition of the vehicle hicle which normally happens during the accident a nt and specifically when the owner of the vehicle ha e has stated that at the time of the accident vehicle was was being driven by his driver. Learned counsel acco accordingly prays impugned Award be set a set aside.

3. On the other h r hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insura surance Company opposes the submissions of the appe appellants and submits that the impugned Award suff suffers from no error and accordingly prays for for dismissal of the present appeal. It is also pointe ointed out that it was the clear case of the respondents b nts before the Tribunal that the deceased himself was was wrong doer and was responsible for sustainin aining injuries on his person as at the time of acciden ident, he was travelling in a ler. crowded three-wheeler.

4. No other argumen ument is made on behalf of the parties. xxx” Otherwise also, the scope of re e of review is extremely limited. A review ca iew can be entertained only when there n there is an error apparent on the face of th of the record or where some new new and important matter or evidence, w nce, which after exercise of due dili ue diligence was not within the knowledge ledge of the applicants or could not b not be produced at the time of ng of passing of the order, is subsequently ently discovered. The review jurisdiction iction cannot be invoked merely to rea to reargue the matter or to fill up omissions o ssions or lacunae left in the original proc l proceedings. In the present case, the applic applicants-appellants admits that the docume ocuments, now sought to be relied upo ed upon, was already part of the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 022 RA-CR-163-2025 in FAO-1401-2022 4 case record record. The non-consideration of suc of such documents, which were admittedly ttedly available at the relevant time e but were not specifically pressed by ssed by the applicants-appellants, canno cannot be treated as an “error apparent on rent on the face of the record”. In any event, it is establishe blished position in law that a review app w application is not meant to permit permit the review-applicants to re-argue th gue the entire case and raise the poi he points that could have been raised duri d during the initial hearing. As no As noted above, order dated

02.9.2025 .2025 was passed the presen presence of learned counsel representin senting the review applicants. Mer Merely because the learned counsel for sel for the review-applicants was not as not available at the time of hearing of ng of the main appeal, cannot const constitute sufficient ground to review the w the order dated 02.9.2025. An order n order passed by this Court can be reviewe eviewed if there is manifest error on rror on the face of the record meaning th ing thereby that there is a clear and ar and obvious mistake in the judgment. ment. The Review Application is n is not meant to re-agitate arguments ments or pleadings that were omitted itted during the hearing of the main matte matter. As such, I find no such e such error in the order dated

02.9.2025 .2025. Rather, as noted above, by wa by way of the present Review Application ication, the review applicant is seekin seeking to reargue and reagitate the main ap ain appeal. Reliance is also placed on a on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble S ’ble Supreme Court in “Malleeswa eeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” ther” SLP(C) No.12787 of 2025 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein pr ein principles for review jurisdiction iction have been laid down in Para 15, wh 15, which reads as follows: - VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-163-2025 in FAO-1401-2022 022 5 “15. It is axiomatic t tic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unle unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rule rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is c is conferred by law on the authority or the Court ourt. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal deal with the power of review of the courts. The pow power of review is different from appellate power wer and is subject to the following limitations to ns to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:

15.1 The review procee roceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to e to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Ord Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

15.2 Review is not to b to be confused with appellate powers, which may ena enable an appellate court to correct all manner of r of errors committed by the subordinate court.

15.3 In exercise of the the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it , it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to b to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it mu it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and ca d cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

15.4 The power of rev review can be exercised for the correction of a mis mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers ca rs can be exercised within the limits specified in th the statute governing the exercise of power.

15.5 The review court d urt does not sit in appeal over its own order. A reh rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It consti onstitutes an exception to the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 022 RA-CR-163-2025 in FAO-1401-2022 6 general rule that once nce a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should n uld not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to preven event a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and and palpable errors.” In view of the facts noted above above, no ground has been made out to inter o interfere with or review the final orde al order dated 02.09.2025 passed in the ma main appeal. The application, b ion, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, sh any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ember 06, 2025 November Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.11.07 18.47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document