1 2025:CGHC:9934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 155 of 2024 The New India Assurance Company Limited, By Divisional Manager The New India Assurance (Wrongly Mentioned Insurance) Company Limited Jail Road Kutchery Chowk Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Signatory Manager Suit Claim Hub Officer 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rameshwar Uikey S/o Dukhwa Ram Uikey Aged About 48 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Basanwahi P. S. Charama District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kunti Bai (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 12-02-2025. 3 - M/s Enterprising Consulting Engineering 47 A Industrial Area Govindpura Bhopal District Bhopal (M. P.) 46021 Through Proprietor . 4 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Sub Transmission Rural Distribution Construction Department Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B. N. Nande with Mr. Asheesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Singh on behalf of Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. K. R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27.02.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.05.24 13:07:34 +0530 2 2. On due consideration, the same is allowed. 3. This review application has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by this Court in MAC No. 1231/2022 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an error apparent on the face of record as the substantial question of law framed during hearing of the appeal is not decided in accordance in law and insurance company is not liable to pay any interest on the amount of award as there is no contract of insurance company and the employer. Therefore the review petition requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside. To bolster his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya And Anr. reported in 2006 (2) T.A.C. 321 (SC) and also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Gyan Chand Malkani Vs. Chetan Sahu and Anr. passed in MAC No. 877/2018 order dated 27.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions and submit that the grounds which have been raised by the applicant in review application amounts to re-hearing of the case on merits of the case. If the applicant was aggrieved by any of the finding recorded on the substantial question of law framed, the only recourse is to challenge the same before the Appellate Court. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. State Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in REVP No. 23/2005 order dated 14.02.2025. 6. Heard both the counsel for the parties. 3 7. The argument which has been advanced by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be re-opening the case and hearing on the merits of the case. 8. It is well settled principle of law that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only error apparent on the face record can be corrected. The Court sitting in review jurisdiction re-appreciate or re-assess the material on record. The grounds raised in this review petition can be agitated in the appellate jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S. Madhusudan Vs. Narayana Reddy and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 685 has observed that an erroneous decision can be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. A judgment can be ope to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of record for the Court to exercise its power of review. 9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined not exercise its review jurisdiction in absence of error apparent on face of record. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari