Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.282 of 2025 Sushil Mohakud & Anr. ..... Petitioner (s) Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Dibakar Sahoo & Anr. ….. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Adam Ali Khan, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER Order No. 17.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. This RVWPET has been filed for modifying the position of law regarding payment of statutory interest from the date of accident instead of payment of the same on a default clause by reviewing the judgment dated 29.11.2025 passed in FAO No.242 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the review petitioners who were Respondents in FAO No.242 of 2024 seeks review of the judgment dated 29.11.2025 passed in FAO No.242 of 2024 solely on the limited point of imposition of interest on the awarded amount from the date of accident as on 02.02.2017 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of default cause. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 3. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ Assurance Company submits that the Opposite Party No.2 was the Appellant in FAO No.242 of 2024. He further submits that the ground taken in the Review Petition appears to be unfounded. He further submits that after obtaining the judgment dated 29.11.2025 passed in FAO No.242 of 2024, the Opposite Party No.2/ New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,61,117/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty-one Thousand One Hundred Seventeen only) by way of cheque bearing No.059705 dated 05.02.2026 of Axis Bank, Bhubaneswar before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Dhenkanal. It is also submitted that in the last line of paragraph 29 and the second line of paragraph 34 of the aforesaid judgment the word “no” has wrongly been mentioned. 5. Considering the submissions and the averments made in the RVWPET, this Court finds any new ground or any error apparent on the face of the record. 6. So, this Court finds no scope to review the judgment dated 29.11.2025 passed in FAO No.242 of 202. However, the word “no” wrongly mentioned in the last line of paragraph 29 and the second line of paragraph 34 of the aforesaid judgment is waived. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 19-Feb-2026 18:33:13 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. 7. Accordingly, this RVWPET is disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali