Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010055742026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./62/2026 MR SUNESWAR DAS AND ANR. S/O LT. TILESWARDAS, R/O- HAWAJAN, P.SHAWAJAN, IN THE DISTRICTOF LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. 2: SRI DIPEN DAS S/O- MR. SUNESWARDAS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O- HAWAJAN P.S HAWAJAN IN THE DISTRICTOF LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM. LTD. REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGAER, GS ROAD, ULUBARI GUAHATI, KAMRUP ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Page No.# 2/5 07.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the review petitioners. None has appeared for the respondents in spite of due service of notice on them, hence, this review petition is heard ex parte. 2. This application for review has been filed by the petitioners praying for review of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 2425/2021, whereby the application for condonation of delay of 993 days in preferring the MAC Appeal, wherein the judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 85/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur was impugned, has been dismissed. 3. The judgment under review was passed in I.A. (Civil) 2421/2021, which was registered on the basis of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the present applicants praying for condonation of delay of 993 days in filing the connected MAC Appeal. In the said MAC Appeal, the applicants had impugned the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 85/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur, whereby the applicants were awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 7,34,881/- along with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 4. It appears that by the order under review, the prayer for condoning the delay of 993 days was rejected mainly on the ground that the applicants had not explained the delay of more than 600 days which was caused in preferring the appeal previously before a Page No.# 3/5 wrong forum. This Court also took into consideration that the applicants did not specifically mention as to when the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to their notice. This Court also took into consideration the fact that though the Interlocutory Application No. (C) 231 (AP) 2018 in MAC Appeal No. 30 (AP) 2018, which was filed by the applicants before wrong forum, was dismissed on 13.11.2019 and the lockdown for COVID-19 started only in the last part of March 2020, however, the period of delay from 13.11.2019 to March 2020 was not explained in the application for condonation of delay. 5. In this review petition, the petitioners have again explained the reason for delay in preferring the MAC Appeal. This time, the applicants have submitted that the delay caused in filing the connected appeal is only of 437 days, and this time, the applicants have specified the dates on which the applicants came to know about the impugned judgment. However, no reason has been mentioned as to why in the interlocutory application, which was dismissed by the judgment under review, the said details were not mentioned. 6. Mr. B. R. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are illiterate persons and unaware about any legal niceties. He further submits that the dates of knowledge of the impugned judgment were not stated in the earlier application as they came to know about the same later on only. He has also cited several rulings of the Apex Court to show that delay of much longer period was condoned in similar circumstances by the Apex Court. Page No.# 4/5 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions. 8. As stated hereinbefore, by the judgment under review, this Court has declined to condone the delay of 993 days as the petitioners had failed to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected MAC Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. It is a well-settled proposition of law that under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a civil court may review its judgment only on specified grounds provided for in the aforesaid statutory provision. The main ground recognized by the aforesaid statutory provisions are, firstly the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner at the time when the judgment under review was delivered. 10. Secondly, when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error must not be a mere erroneous view of law or a debatable point, which requires elaborate argument to be established. The flaw must be glaring to invoke the review jurisdiction. The third condition under which the review jurisdiction may be invoked is “for any other sufficient reason”. This phrase is ejusdem generis with the preceding grounds. 11. The petitioners have to satisfy this court that any of the aforesaid Page No.# 5/5 grounds exists justifying review of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in IA(Civil) No. 2425/2021. However, in the instant review application, the petitioners have narrated in details the cause for the delay, as if they are filing a fresh application for condonation of delay. The petitioners have failed to show any error apparent on the face of the judgment under review, or any other ground justifying invocation of review jurisdiction by this court. As such, this is not a fit case to invoke review jurisdiction by this court. 12. For the discussion made and reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs, this review application is, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant