[2026:RJ-JP:7167] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 13/2025 1. Smt. Draupadi Devi W/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shri Anil Singh S/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Shri Jaman Singh S/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Kumari Chetna Kanwar D/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ratilal Meena S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dhani Sailanya, Tan Chhapawas, Police Station Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Jeep Tempo Taxi No. Rj-14-1P- 4525) 2. Kailashi Devi W/o Shri Ramkaranmeena, R/o Plot No. 42, Krishna Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Jeep Tempo Taxi No. Rj-14-1P- 4525) 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Regional Office At 10, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Jeep Tempo Taxi No. Rj-14-1P-4525) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhusan Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/02/2026 1. Instant S.B. Review Petition is preferred by applicants to review order dated 21.01.2025 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous [2026:RJ-JP:7167] (2 of 4) [CRW-13/2025] Appeal No. 854/2023 titled as Smt. Draupadi Devi vs. Ratilal Meena and others. 2. The brief facts of the case are that claimants Draupadi Devi, Anil Singh (Minor), Jaman Singh (Minor), Kumari Chetna (Minor) and Kisturi Devi have filed a claim petition under Sections 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation on the death of Himmat Singh in an accident dated 07.07.2004. The claim petition was dismissed on 20.08.2019 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 16, MACT, Jaipur Metro. The petitioners have filed an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court which was barred by 1216 days and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. While considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court has dismissed the same on 21.01.2025 on the following ground: "14. Having considered aforesaid, the instant appeal is preferred by all five claimants and during pendency of appeal, appellant No.5 Kisturi Devi has expired on 15.02.2023 and an application to delete her name was already allowed on 24.07.2023. Herein, all 5 claimants were adult and two of them are male claimants. 15. We have gone through the treatment record of Smt. Kisturi Devi, Ms. Chetna Kanwar and Sh. Anil Singh and after considering the entire record, I am of the considered view that this treatment record is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that due to engagement in treatment of two or three ailing family members the appeal could not filed on time. It is [2026:RJ-JP:7167] (3 of 4) [CRW-13/2025] necessary for the appellant to show sufficient reasons and the claimants are resident of Jaipur, and High Court is also situated at Jaipur and Tribunal which passed the order is also at Jaipur. Therefore, there is enough time to file a civil misc. appeal but the appellants have failed to file appeal on time, thus, the reasons assigned by the appellants is not sufficient and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed." 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the provision under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation and a lenient approach may be adopted so as to provide justice to the applicants. He further submitted that order dated 21.01.2025 be reviewed on the ground that the applicants are poor persons and they are not aware about the legal procedure. He further submitted that after dismissal of claim petition, counsel appointed in MACT has not informed the applicants and same was a reason of delay. He further submitted that one of the claimants has expired during this period. At last, he submitted that the review petition is filed on mercy grounds. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant Insurance Company and he submitted that the claim petition was dismissed on ground of non-involvement. He further submitted that material on record was already considered by this Hon'ble Court and there is no ground for condonation of delay. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. [2026:RJ-JP:7167] (4 of 4) [CRW-13/2025] 7. After considering the material available on record with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court has decided the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now it is not possible to review the order passed by this Court which has been passed on sound principles of law, thus review on merits is impermissible. There is no ground to allow this review petition in light of settled position of law. 8. In view of aforesaid, the review petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. 9. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /29