RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 IN THE HIG 111 Parveen Kum Shashi Kuma CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. present revie Section 151 Court where restoration o 2666-CII-20 restoration a 2. appeal seeki the learned M 01.05.2017 Section 166 -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA RA-C CM N IN FA Date o n Kumari and another .… Re Versus i Kumar and others .... No M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, A for the review-applicant/appella I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The review-applicant/appellan review application under Order XL n 151 CPC for review of the order da whereby the application bearing N tion of the main appeal along with ano 2026 for condonation of delay of 6 tion application were dismissed. Briefly stated, the appellant- l seeking enhancement of compensatio rned Motor Accident Claims Tribuna 2017 passed in MACT Case No. RT n 166 read with Section 140 of the Mo D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-34-2026 in CM Nos. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 FAO-6955-2017 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Review-applicant/appellants Non-applicant/Respondents NIDHI GUPTA olia, Advocate ppellants. pellant/claimants have filed the er XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with der dated 13.02.2026 passed by this ring No. CM-2667-CII-20263 for ith another application bearing CM- ay of 62 days in filing the aforesaid -claimants have filed the main ensation of ₹7,45,000/- awarded by ribunal, Faridkot, vide Award dated o. RT 04 of 24.08.2016 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Vide the with this for said ain d by ated nder ide RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 order/judgm prosecution 3. aforemention -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -2- judgment dated 06.11.2025, the main a ution which reads as under:- “The present appeal has seeking enhancement of com awarded by the learned Moto Faridkot (for short 'the learned 01.05.2017 passed in MACT C filed under Section 166 read w Vehicles Act, 1988. Present appeal is of the motion was issued vide order d the matter has been adjourned non-appearance of learned cou on the last date of hearing adjourned at request of learne Today also, none appeared on bare reading of the above fac have exhibited an utterly casua pursuit of the present litigation very valuable public time of the affording opportunities to the justice. It is clear that neith counsel is seriously interested i Thus, this Court is left with no the same for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), disposed of.” Feeling aggrieved, the review entioned 02 applications i.e. (i main appeal was dismissed for non- l has been filed by the claimants compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- otor Accident Claims Tribunal, rned Tribunal') vide Award dated T Case No. RT 04 of 24.08.2016 ad with Section 140 of the Motor the year 2017; in which notice of der dated 11.07.2018. Thereafter, ned either at request of, or due to counsel for the appellants. Even ing i.e. 24.05.2023, matter was arned counsel for the appellants. d on behalf of the appellants. A e facts shows that the appellants asual and careless attitude in their ation. It is to be appreciated that f the Court has been expended in the appellants in the interest of neither the appellants nor their ted in pursuing the present matter. no other option except to dismiss n(s), if any, shall also stand view-applicant/appellants have filed i.e. (i) CM-2667-CII-20263 for nts al, ed 16 tor of er, to en as ts. A nts eir at in of eir er. iss nd filed for RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 restoration condonation application merits by th reads as und -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -3- tion of the main appeal and nation of delay of 62 days in fili ation. However, both the said applica by this Court vide order under revi as under:- “Present application (C filed seeking restoration of th 2017, which was dismissed fo dated 06.11.2025. Along with application (CM-2666-CII-202 condonation of delay of 62 d application. The main appeal was fi enhancement of compensation the learned Motor Accident Cl Award dated 01.05.2017 passed 24.08.2016 filed under Section the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Vide order dated 06 dismissed for non-prosecution under:- “The present app claimants seeking enha Rs.7,45,000/- awarded b Claims Tribunal, Farid Tribunal') vide Award MACT Case No. RT 0 Section 166 read with Vehicles Act, 1988. Present appeal is notice of motion was and (ii) CM-2666-CII-2026 for in filing the aforesaid restoration pplications were also dismissed on er review dated 13.02.2026, which n (CM-2667-CII-2026) has been f the main case i.e. FAO-6955- d for non-prosecution vide order ith the said application, another 2026) has been filed seeking 62 days in filing the restoration as filed by the claimants seeking tion of Rs.7,45,000/- awarded by t Claims Tribunal, Faridkot vide ssed in MACT Case No. RT 04 of tion 166 read with Section 140 of 06.11.2025, the appeal was ution. The said order reads as appeal has been filed by the nhancement of compensation of ed by the learned Motor Accident aridkot (for short 'the learned ard dated 01.05.2017 passed in T 04 of 24.08.2016 filed under with Section 140 of the Motor l is of the year 2017; in which was issued vide order dated for tion on hich en er er ng on ng by de of of as as he of nt ed in er tor ch ed RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -4- 11.07.2018. Thereafter, t either at request of, or learned counsel for the date of hearing i.e. 24.05 at request of learned cou also, none appeared on bare reading of the a appellants have exhibi careless attitude in th litigation. It is to be ap public time of the Co affording opportunities to of justice. It is clear th their counsel is seriousl present matter. Thus, thi option except to dismiss t Ordered according Pending applicatio disposed of.” A perusal of the present a making general and vague aver been disclosed explaining the their counsel on the date when t applicants have also failed convincing explanation which c appeal. It is well settled th dismissed for non-prosecution i party seeking restoration is req explaining its conduct and abse It is further noticeable th the appeal, the conduct of t consistently negligent. As n ter, the matter has been adjourned f, or due to non-appearance of the appellants. Even on the last 24.05.2023, matter was adjourned counsel for the appellants. Today d on behalf of the appellants. A he above facts shows that the hibited an utterly casual and n their pursuit of the present e appreciated that very valuable Court has been expended in ies to the appellants in the interest r that neither the appellants nor iously interested in pursuing the s, this Court is left with no other iss the same for non-prosecution. dingly. cation(s), if any, shall also stand ent applications shows that except averments, no sufficient cause has the absence of the appellants or hen the appeal was dismissed. The ed to furnish any cogent or ich could justify restoration of the d that restoration of a matter ion is not a matter of right and the required to show sufficient cause absence. le that even prior to dismissal of of the appellants had remained s noticed in the order dated ed of ast ed ay A he nd nt le in est or he er nd pt as or he or he ter he se of ed ed RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 4. that on 13.02 failed to not applications delay of 62 2026 were d -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -5- 06.11.2025, the appeal, which p repeatedly adjourned either on due to their non-appearance. adequate and repeated opportu but they failed to avail the appellants clearly reflects lack in pursuing the litigation. Even otherwise, the condonation of delay of 62 d application is wholly unsatisfa sufficient cause. The law of lim policy and cannot be brushed considerations, particularly condonation has failed to estab delay. In view of the above di sufficient ground either to con restoration application or to re vide order dated 06.11.2025 prosecution. Consequently, CM condonation of delay is dismiss CM-2667-CII-2026 seeking re also stands dismissed.” Learned counsel for review- n 13.02.2026, he has failed to appear note the case in his case dairy, o ations bearing No. CM-2666-CII-20 of 62 days in filing the restoration ap were dismissed on merits in his absen ich pertains to the year 2017, was r on request of the appellants or ce. The appellants were granted ortunities to prosecute the matter, the same. The conduct of the lack of diligence and seriousness the explanation furnished for 62 days in filing the restoration tisfactory and does not constitute f limitation is founded upon public hed aside merely on sympathetic rly when the party seeking stablish bona fide reasons for the e discussion, this Court finds no condone the delay in filing the to restore the main appeal, which, .2025 was dismissed for non- CM-2666-CII-2026 seeking missed. As a necessary corollary, g restoration of the main appeal -applicants, inter alia, submits ppear on account of the fact that he airy, on account of which both the 2026 seeking condonation of tion application No. CM-2667-CII- s absence. It is accordingly, prayed as or ed er, he ss or on te lic tic ng he no he h, ng ry, al mits t he the of yed RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 that the pres 13.02.2026 m 5. 6. detail. I find the review taking into c 7. application i entire case a initial hearin taking into sheer incorr applicant is learned coun is not suffic when no cog Court can be meaning the The Review that were om such error in 8. Supreme C -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -6- e present review application may be 2026 may be recalled. No other argument is made on b I have heard learned counsel I find no merit in the submissions adv view-applicants. The order under re into consideration all facts and circu In any event, it is established ation is not meant to permit the rev case and raise the points that could hearing. The order under review dated into consideration all facts and circ incorrigible casual attitude of learn is evident from the fact that eve d counsel had failed to appear before t sufficient ground to review the order no cogent reason is given for the abse can be reviewed if there is manifest e ng thereby that there is a clear and obv eview Application is not meant to re ere omitted during the hearing of the m rror in the order dated 13.02.2026. Reliance is also placed on a rec me Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K ay be allowed and the order dated de on behalf of the review applicant. unsel and perused the case file in ns advanced by learned counsel for der review has been passed after circumstances of the case in hand. ished position in law that a review e review-applicant to re-argue the could have been raised during the dated 13.02.2026 was passed after nd circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the review- at even for restoration of the case, efore this Court on 13.02.2026. This order dated 13.02.2026; especially e absence. An order passed by this ifest error on the face of the record nd obvious mistake in the judgment. to re-agitate arguments or pleadings f the main matter. As such, I find no n a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Vs. K. Suguna and Another” ated ant. e in l for after and. iew the the The ase, This ially this cord ent. ings d no er” RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 SLP(C)No.1 review juris follows: - -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -7- )No.12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09 jurisdiction have been laid down “15. It is axiomatic that the assumed unless expressly con rules having the force of a sta cannot be assumed unless it authority or the Court. Section CPC deal with the power of re of review is different from app the following limitations to ma decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings a and have to be strictly confine Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be con which may enable an appellate errors committed by the subord 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdic CPC, it is not permissible for reheard and corrected. A r remembered, has a limited purp be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can b of a mistake, but not to substitu exercised within the limits spec the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does no order. A rehearing of the constitutes an exception to th judgment is signed or pronoun 08.09.2025, wherein principles for down in Para 15, which reads as t the right of appeal cannot be conferred by the statute or the a statute. The review jurisdiction s it is conferred bylaw on the tion 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of f review of the courts. The power appellate power and is subject to o maintain the finality of judicial gs are not by way of an appeal nfined to the scope and ambit of confused with appellate powers, llate court to correct all manner of bordinate court. isdiction under Order 47 Rule1 of for an erroneous decision to be A review petition, it must be purpose and cannot be allowed to an be exercised for the correction stitute a view. Such powers can be specified in the statute governing es not sit in appeal over its own the matter is impermissible. It to the general rule that once a nounced, it should not be altered. s for s as he on he of er to ial al of rs, of of be be to on be ng wn It a d. RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-34 CM Nos. 26 IN FAO-695 9. ground is ma Application 10. 24.03.2026 rishu -2026 in s. 2666 and 2667-CII-2026 6955-2017 -8- Hence, it is invoked only to pre or to correct grave and palpabl In view of the above noted fa d is made out to review the order dated ation accordingly stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any al 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable o prevent a miscarriage of justice pable errors.” oted factual and legal position, no r dated 13.02.2026. Present Review any also stand(s), disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ce RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.