2026:JHHC:11018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 20 of 2023 ------ Regional Manager, Bank of India, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Indra Dev Paswan 2. Raj Devi, wife of Chatis Paswan 3. Rupam Kumar, daughter of Late Indra Dev Paswan 4. Pammi Kumari, daughter of Late Indra Dev Paswan 5. Savesh Kumar, son of Late Indra Dev Paswan 6. Mandeep Kumar, son of Late Indra Dev Paswan All are permanent residents of Village Demdem Tola, Nawadih, P.O. Salaiya, P.S. Jori, District Chatra 7. Dilip Kumar Singh, son of Raj Kumar Singh, resident of Kadru Harmu Road, P.O. Argora, District Ranchi 8. National Insurance Company Limited, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali, Main Road, P.O. Ranchi, District Ranchi .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate For the O.P. No.8 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate ------ 07/17.04.2026 Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.8. 2. This civil review petition has been filed for review/recall of the judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed in M.A. No.374 of 2015. 3. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the driver of the offending vehicle being the Jeep, was having valid license, in spite of that this Court modified the award of the Tribunal dated 06.04.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.64 of 2006 to the effect that Insurance Company will satisfy the award and will recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. He submits that this finding is apparent error of record and in view of that judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed in M.A. No.374 of 2015 may kindly be modified. He also submits that vicarious liability has also not been considered. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal itself has held that there was no valid license and considering that aspect of the matter, this Court has 2026:JHHC:11018 2 modified the award to the effect to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He submits that there is no illegality or any apparent error on the face of record to review the judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed in M.A. No.374 of 2015. 5. The said miscellaneous appeal was decided after hearing both the sides. In para 4 of the award, the stand taken by the Insurance Company has been noted by the Tribunal wherein Insurance Company has clearly taken the point that there was no valid license and Issue No.IV was before the learned Tribunal with regard to valid driving license and the owner and drivers have appeared before the Tribunal and they have not been able to prove that they were having valid driving license. In spite of that onus has been put on the Insurance Company to comply the award without liberty to pay and recover from the owner. In that view of the matter, in the M.A., the said direction was issued to pay and recover from the owner which clearly suggests that there is no apparent error on the face of the record. 6. Dealing with the aspect of the review jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1986 SC 674 observed as under: - “Whatever be the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. 7. In view of above, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. A review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject, is not a ground for review. In the light of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, on three grounds review may be possible i.e., I. discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time, when the decree or order was passed, II. mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and III. for any other sufficient reason. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Cathlicos vs. mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, observed 2026:JHHC:11018 3 that power of review is circumscribed by the three grounds, which have been specified in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. In the said judgment, explaining a scope of the third ground of review mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC namely “any other sufficient reason”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “any other sufficient reason” cannot be “any sufficient reason” to a reason which is sufficient and at the same time at least analogous to one of the two reasons as indicated hereinabove in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. 9. Meaning thereby, in view of the said judgment in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Cathlicos (supra) “any other sufficient reason”, cannot be construed as “any sufficient reason”, and that any sufficient reason cannot become a ground for review unless even such sufficient reason in analogous to one of the other two grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC i.e. grounds (I) and (II) as indicated hereinabove. 10. This Court has heard this review petition at length and has not found any material error in the said judgment. In view of that, it cannot be reviewed the earlier judgment unless satisfied that material error manifest on the face of order undermines it soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. 11. In State of West Begal & Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the term ‘mistake or error apparent’ has been discussed in the following words: “The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision". 12. Coming to the facts of the present review petition, the Court finds 2026:JHHC:11018 4 that the petitioner herein, has challenged the final verdict of conclusion of this Court, which cannot be treated as an error on the face of the record. On the basis of above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present review is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court. In view of the facts, reasons and analysis, this review petition, is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit A.F.R. Uploaded 20.04.2026