RA-CR-10 IN FAO-6210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 Rani Devi and others Vikas and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J 1. application 15.12.2025 No. FAO-6210 merits. 2. appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 584 dated 05.09.2019 Vehicles Act, 1988. the main appeal was dismissed on merits. 3. order dated -2026 6210-2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CR IN FAO Date of Decision: Rani Devi and others .…Applicant Versus and others .... Non CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the review-applicant/appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The review-applicant/appellant application under Section 114 CPC for review of 15.12.2025, passed by this Court whereby 6210-2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on Briefly stated, the appellant- appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 584 dated 05.09.2019, filed under Section s Act, 1988. Vide order/judgment under review dated appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on Learned counsel for the review order dated 15.12.2025 deserves to be reviewed on account of the fact that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-10-2026 FAO-6210-2024 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 Applicant-Appellants Non-applicant/Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate applicant/appellants. appellants have filed the present review CPC for review of judgment/order dated Court whereby the main appeal bearing on the ground of delay as well as on -claimants have filed the main appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹17,71,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal passed in MACP No. , filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vide order/judgment under review dated 15.12.2025, the ground of delay as well as on Learned counsel for the review-applicants submits that the deserves to be reviewed on account of the fact that review order dated the main appeal bearing on the ground of delay as well as on claimants have filed the main awarded by passed in MACP No. of the Motor , the ground of delay as well as on submits that the deserves to be reviewed on account of the fact that RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.03 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-10 IN FAO-6210 the learned Tribunal towards consortium to applicant/appellants No. 2 to 4 submits that applicant/appellants No. 2 to 4 was however, the same was also been recorded in para No. 3 of the judgment under review. accordingly prayed that the order dated 4. 5. 6. not meant to permit the review raise the points that could have been raised. As noted above, order dated 15.12.2025 applicants. An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. 15.12.2025, thi liable to be rejected as no such relief has been sought, or such prayer made in the Grounds of Appeal. It is further record on which compensation has been sought to Appeal is that interest has been awarded on lower side @ 6% per annum; and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.80 lakh along with interest @ 24%. on ground of in filing the Appeal. -2026 6210-2024 -2- learned Tribunal as well as this Court has not granted any towards consortium to applicant/appellants No. 2 to 4 submits that although no prayer for grant of licant/appellants No. 2 to 4 was made in the Grounds of Appeal, however, the same was raised during the course of final arguments also been recorded in para No. 3 of the judgment under review. accordingly prayed that the order dated 15.12.202 No other argument is made on behalf of the review applicant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. It is established position in law that a review application is not meant to permit the review-applicants to re raise the points that could have been raised. As noted above, order dated 15.12.2025 was passed in the presence of learn . An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. 15.12.2025, this Court has clearly recorded that prayer for consortium is liable to be rejected as no such relief has been sought, or such prayer made in the Grounds of Appeal. It is further record on which compensation has been sought to Appeal is that interest has been awarded on lower side @ 6% per annum; and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.80 lakh along with interest @ 24%. Furthermore, First Appeal has been dismissed also on ground of inordinate delay of 166 days in filing and 685 days in re filing the Appeal. The Review Application is not meant to this Court has not granted any amount towards consortium to applicant/appellants No. 2 to 4. Learned counsel prayer for grant of consortium to made in the Grounds of Appeal, raised during the course of final arguments; as has also been recorded in para No. 3 of the judgment under review. It is 15.12.2025 be reviewed. No other argument is made on behalf of the review applicant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. t is established position in law that a review application is applicants to re-argue the entire case and raise the points that could have been raised. As noted above, order dated learned counsel for the review- . An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. In para 7 of the order dated s Court has clearly recorded that prayer for consortium is liable to be rejected as no such relief has been sought, or such prayer made in the Grounds of Appeal. It is further recorded that the only ground on which compensation has been sought to be enhanced in the Grounds of Appeal is that interest has been awarded on lower side @ 6% per annum; and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.80 lakh along Furthermore, First Appeal has been dismissed also ordinate delay of 166 days in filing and 685 days in re- The Review Application is not meant to re-agitate amount . Learned counsel consortium to made in the Grounds of Appeal, as has It is No other argument is made on behalf of the review applicant. t is established position in law that a review application is argue the entire case and raise the points that could have been raised. As noted above, order dated . An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a In para 7 of the order dated s Court has clearly recorded that prayer for consortium is liable to be rejected as no such relief has been sought, or such prayer the only ground enhanced in the Grounds of Appeal is that interest has been awarded on lower side @ 6% per annum; and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.80 lakh along Furthermore, First Appeal has been dismissed also agitate RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.03 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-10 IN FAO-6210 arguments or pleadings. As such, I find no such error in the order dated 15.12.2025 Application, the review the main appeal. 7. Supreme Court in No. 12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as follows: -2026 6210-2024 -3- arguments or pleadings. As such, I find no such error in the order dated 15.12.2025. Rather, as noted above, by way of the present Application, the review-applicants are seeking to reargue and re the main appeal. Reliance is also placed on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” SLP(C) 12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as follows: “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or rules having the force of a statute. The review cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by authority or the Court. Section 114 and CPC deal with the power of review of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an and have to be strictly confined to the scope Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate which may enable an appellate court to errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule CPC, it is not permissible for an e reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. arguments or pleadings. As such, I find no such error in the order dated . Rather, as noted above, by way of the present Review seeking to reargue and re-agitate Reliance is also placed on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” SLP(C) 12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as follows: - It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the s having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power appellate power and is subject to limitations to maintain the finality of judicial 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of subordinate court. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to power of review can be exercised for the correction substitute a view. Such powers can be arguments or pleadings. As such, I find no such error in the order dated Review agitate the jurisdiction law on the Order 47, Rule 1 of of the courts. The power appellate power and is subject to limitations to maintain the finality of judicial appeal and ambit of powers, correct all manner of 1 of to be be allowed to correction Such powers can be RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.03 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-10 IN FAO-6210 8. ground is made out to review the order Present Review 02.07.2026 rishu -2026 6210-2024 -4- exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. constitutes an exception to the general rule that once judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a or to correct grave and palpable In view of the above noted factual and legal ground is made out to review the order Present Review Application accordingly stands 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable specified in the statute governing review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It tion to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.” In view of the above noted factual and legal position, no ground is made out to review the order/judgment dated 15.12.2025 Application accordingly stands dismissed. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No specified in the statute governing own It a altered. miscarriage of justice RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.03 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.