2026:JHHC:11387 1 Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 ---- The Secretary, M/s Bihar Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator Office at Pariwahan Parishar, Near Phulwari Jail, P.O.B.V. College, PS. Airport, District Patna PIN 800014 …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.Munni Devi, aged about 49 years, w/o late Vibhuti Prasad Singh 2.Laxmi Kumari (minor) aged about 14 years d/o late Vibhuti Prasad Singh 3.Rupak Kumar (minor) aged about 17 years d/o late Vibhuti Prasad Singh 4.Shubham Kumar (minor) aged about 16 years son of late Vibhuti Prasad Singh, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are represented through their mother and natural Guardian i.e. Respondent No.1 Munni Devi, All residents of Village Ward No.11 Ram Janki Mandir Ganga pur Athar, PS Gangapur, District Samastipur (Bihar), at present resident of Bhawanipur Doranda, Quarter No.C 8/16, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi …… ….. .... Opp. Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the Resp/Claimants:- Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate ---- 4/17.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ claimants. 2. This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.2025 passed in M.A. No.46 of 2025 for review of the said judgment. 3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is apparent error in the said judgment of this Court dated 30.7.2025 to the effect that the petitioner has 2026:JHHC:11387 2 Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 already filed a petition before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.238 of 2023 for recalling of the ex-parte judgment and in paragraph no.6 of the judgment of this Court, it has been held, that, the petitioner herein has not preferred any appeal and in view of that, the contention has not been accepted. He submits that it is an apparent error and in view of that, the review petition may kindly be allowed and the said judgment may kindly be recalled. 4. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ claimants submits that there is no apparent error on the face of the record as no appeal has been preferred and only argument has been advanced that the award is ex-parte and in paragraph no.6 it has been held that since the appeal has not been preferred and in view of that the contention of the petitioner herein has not been accepted. He next submits that even the petition filed before the learned Tribunal was after the judgment of the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Case No.238 of 2025. He next submits that by the order dated 27.11.2024, the said petition was further dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Misc. Motor Accident Claims Case No.51 of 2021. 5. From the record, it transpires that there is no apparent error on the face of the record as admittedly no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the award dated 2026:JHHC:11387 3 Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 27.11.2024 in Motor Accident Claims Case No.238 of 2023 and even for recalling the ex-parte judgment of the learned Tribunal, a petition was filed later on before that learned court and admittedly, the appeal against the said award has not been preferred by the petitioner and in view of that, there is no apparent error on the face of the record. Now, the said petition of recalling the award has been decided by the learned Court by the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in Misc. Motor Accident Claim Case No.51 of 2025 and this fact has not been brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner rather it has been brought in knowledge of this Court by learned counsel appearing for the claimants. It is well settled that if there is no error on the face of the record, the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised and delineatly the said judgment is final judgment and the contention of the petitioner herein in the present review petition to re-open the entire case and only on three grounds, the review can be maintained under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C, 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.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Cathlicos vs. Most.Rev. mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, observed that power of review is circumscribed 2026:JHHC:11387 4 Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 2026:JHHC:11387 5 Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 of finality. 9. 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". 10. Coming to the facts of the present review petition, the Court finds 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. 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of review is made out this review petition is a mis-conceived one, and as such, this civil review petition being Civil Review No. 144 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 17.04.2026 SI/ A.F.R