1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 327 of 2025 Poonam Chand Sharma S/o Bhagirathi Prasad Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Salka, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office- Ambika Transport, Ambika Petrol Pump Parisar, Ambedkar Nagar Chowk, Banaras Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Shivmangal Rajwade S/o Dilbharan Rajwade Aged About 36 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Business, R/o Village Khopa, O.P. Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Chandravati Devi W/o Shivmangal Rajwade Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Khopa, O.P. Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Dilbharan Rajwade S/o Bahoran Rajwade Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Khopa, O.P. Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Sushila W/o Dilbharan Rajwade Aged About 58 Years Village Khopa, O.P. Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Puranram Dewangan S/o Rambharos Dewangan Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Adhina Salka, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.10.09 10:26:51 +0530 2 Application for review of the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in MAC No.1106/2019. (By circulation in Chamber) S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 08.10.2025 1. The review petition is taken up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’). 2. By this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by this Court in MAC No.1106/2019 on the ground that the offending vehicle was not used for commercial purpose as a transport vehicle, therefore, permit was not required. Hence, the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by this Court shifting the liability upon the registered owner i.e. review petitioner and the driver of the offending vehicle is erroneous and the same deserves to be reviewed in the interest of justice. 3. I have gone through the review petition and the annexed documents. 4. On going through the order dated 04.04.2025, it is manifest that after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and appreciating all the facts of the case this Court has passed the order. 5. The grounds mentioned in the review petition are in the nature of seeking liberty to argue the case afresh. No other ground has been pointed out by the review petitioner showing any manifest error on the record nor has any new fact been brought to notice which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the review petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be 3 strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It is also settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. 7. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai