1 CGHC010180102026 2026:CGHC:42479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 234 of 2026 • Lalit Kumar Tandon S/o Jagjivan Tandon Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jai Stambh Chowk Latuva, Police Station City Kotwali Baloda Bazar Tahsil Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Petitioner versus 1. Hemant Dhruv S/o Budhram Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Bharuvadih, Police Station Palari, Tahsil Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2. Smt. Beena W/o Hemant Dhruv Aged About 38 Years R/o Bharuvadih, Police Station Palari, Tahsil Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhathapara Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 3. Jai Kumar S/o Mohar Das Mandley Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Latuva Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Tahsil Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Driver) 4. Manager Bajaj Alians General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Shiv Mohan Building, Vidhansabha Road Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.30 14:17:28 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30.09.2026 1. The review petitioner has filed this review petition for re-call/modification of the judgment passed in MAC No. 240 of 2023 dated 27.02.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that this review petition has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle for re- call/modification of order passed in MAC No. 240 of 2023. He would contend that an ex-parte award was passed against the review petitioner by the learned Claims Tribunal and against said award an application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is pending consideration and this fact was not brought into the notice of this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate at length and perused the documents placed on record. 4. Perusal of record would show that despite service of notice no-one appeared for owner and driver. The owner and driver were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal also. It is informed that application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is pending consideration before the learned Claims Tribunal, but same cannot be a ground for review of an order, which was passed on merits after taking into consideration the material available on record. 5. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 9. “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 3 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.” 6. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 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 4 record and would not require any long-drawn process 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. 7. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 8. 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.” 9. Having considered the fact that MAC No. 240 of 2023 was decided by this Court on 27.02.2026 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record; therefore, the prayer sought for modification/recall of the order passed in MAC No. 240 of 2023 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 5 10. Consequently, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant