1 2026:CGHC:19277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 114 of 2026 1 - Shri Manjit Singh Bath S/o Shri Prakash Singh Bath Aged About 50 Years By- Light Transport, Water Tank Complex, G.E. Road Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Registered Owner) 2 - Vikas Kumar Vasnik S/o Chain Lal Vasnik Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhulatola, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District- K.C.G. (Chhattisgarh) (Driver) ... Petitioners/applicants versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Komre S/o Devsai Komre Aged About 24 Years R/o M.No.- 44, Ward No.- 12, Kamansur Khargaon, Thana- Khargaon, District- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant) 2 - National Insurance Company Limited By- Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg- 08/b-1853) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioners/applicants : Mr.B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Gopika Kaul, Advocate and Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Advocate For respondent/s. : None appears Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27.04.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This review petition has been preferred by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to review the order passed in MAC No.2307 of 2025 dated 25.02.2026, whereby, an appeal preferred by the applicants herein challenging the award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.986 of 2023 was dismissed. 3. The Miscellaneous Appeal No.2307 of 2025 was dismissed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It was also observed in the order that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce driving licence before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the tune of Rs.24,23,290/- to the claimant with interest @ 7% per annum and liability was fastened with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle with stipulation of pay and recover. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants herein would refer to Annexure A/3 the driving licence which was issued in favour of the driver of the offending truck. The driving licence was valid for Non-Transport Vehicle from 15.06.2010 to 13.06.2030 and for Transport Hazardous from 30.07.2021 to 29.07.2026. He would submit that on the date of accident that was on 03.10.2023, the driver of the offending truck did have valid and effective driving licence. He would further submit that this aspect of the matter was not considered at the time of final hearing of MAC No.2307 of 2025. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, reported in 2025(4) SCC 321, particularly para 38, wherein, it is held that Section 114 read with Order 47 of CPC permits the court to look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. Para 38 is reproduced herein below : 3 “38. Section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC does permit the court to look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. It would invariably reduce to an examination.” 5. It is not a case where the applicants herein despite due diligence failed to produce driving licence before the learned Tribunal rather they deliberately failed to produce said document though they had ample opportunities. Even along with memo of appeal, said document was not produced and for the first time, said driving licence has been produced in this Review Petition, therefore, the judgment passed in the matter of Mahadeo Krishna Naik(supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case. 6. In the matter of Hind Samachar Limited (Delhi Unit) Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2026(2) SCC 773, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgments passed in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru, reported in 2003(3) SCC 338 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Devi, reported in 2024(13) SCC 755. Mr. Sharma would pray for recall of order dated 25.02.2026 passed in MAC No.2307 of 2025. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material/documents available on the record. 8. The cases of Lehru (supra) and Geeta Devi (supra) subject matter was fake licenses and it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Insurance Company failed to raise said plea before the learned Tribunal and there was no pleading and prove. 9. In the present case, the applicants herein participated in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal but failed to adduce documentary evidence to 4 establish the fact that on the date of accident, driver did have valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the applicants would not get any help from the cited judgments. 10. On due consideration of the above-discussed facts, it can safely be held that pleadings and grounds raised in the review petition are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the writ petition which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 11. At this juncture, it will be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 12. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: (1) Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 5 13. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 14. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process 6 of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 15. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the disguise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 16. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgments, I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha