Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Manjit Singh Bath vs Vijay Kumar Komre on 27 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19277
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 114 of 2026
1 - Shri Manjit Singh Bath S/o Shri Prakash Singh Bath Aged About 50 Years By-
Light Transport, Water Tank Complex, G.E. Road Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Registered Owner)
2 - Vikas Kumar Vasnik S/o Chain Lal Vasnik Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Bhulatola, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District- K.C.G. (Chhattisgarh) (Driver)
... Petitioners/applicants
versus
1 - Vijay Kumar Komre S/o Devsai Komre Aged About 24 Years R/o M.No.-
44, Ward No.- 12, Kamansur Khargaon, Thana- Khargaon, District- Mohla
Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant)
2 - National Insurance Company Limited By- Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg- 08/b-1853)
... Respondent(s)
For Review Petitioners/applicants : Mr.B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with
Ms. Gopika Kaul, Advocate and Mr. Mayur
Khandelwal, Advocate
For respondent/s. : None appears
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
27.04.2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. This review petition has been preferred by the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle to review the order passed in MAC No.2307 of 2025
dated 25.02.2026, whereby, an appeal preferred by the applicants herein
challenging the award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor
2
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.986 of 2023
was dismissed.
3. The Miscellaneous Appeal No.2307 of 2025 was dismissed on the ground
that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective
driving licence on the date of accident. It was also observed in the order
that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce driving
licence before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal had granted
compensation to the tune of Rs.24,23,290/- to the claimant with interest
@ 7% per annum and liability was fastened with the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle with stipulation of pay and recover.
4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants herein would
refer to Annexure A/3 the driving licence which was issued in favour of the
driver of the offending truck. The driving licence was valid for
Non-Transport Vehicle from 15.06.2010 to 13.06.2030 and for Transport
Hazardous from 30.07.2021 to 29.07.2026. He would submit that on the
date of accident that was on 03.10.2023, the driver of the offending truck
did have valid and effective driving licence. He would further submit that
this aspect of the matter was not considered at the time of final hearing of
MAC No.2307 of 2025. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, reported in
2025(4) SCC 321, particularly para 38, wherein, it is held that Section 114
read with Order 47 of CPC permits the court to look into any document,
having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record
because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be
produced by a party. Para 38 is reproduced herein below :
3
“38. Section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC does permit
the court to look into any document, having a bearing on
the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because
despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be
produced by a party. It would invariably reduce to an
examination.”
5. It is not a case where the applicants herein despite due diligence failed to
produce driving licence before the learned Tribunal rather they deliberately
failed to produce said document though they had ample opportunities.
Even along with memo of appeal, said document was not produced and
for the first time, said driving licence has been produced in this Review
Petition, therefore, the judgment passed in the matter of Mahadeo
Krishna Naik(supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case.
6. In the matter of Hind Samachar Limited (Delhi Unit) Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2026(2) SCC 773,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgments passed in the matter of
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru, reported in
2003(3) SCC 338 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Geeta Devi, reported in 2024(13) SCC 755. Mr. Sharma
would pray for recall of order dated 25.02.2026 passed in MAC No.2307 of
2025.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the
material/documents available on the record.
8. The cases of Lehru (supra) and Geeta Devi (supra) subject matter was
fake licenses and it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
Insurance Company failed to raise said plea before the learned Tribunal
and there was no pleading and prove.
9. In the present case, the applicants herein participated in the proceeding
before the learned Tribunal but failed to adduce documentary evidence to
4
establish the fact that on the date of accident, driver did have valid and
effective driving licence, therefore, the applicants would not get any help
from the cited judgments.
10. On due consideration of the above-discussed facts, it can safely be held
that pleadings and grounds raised in the review petition are in the nature
of taking liberty to re-argue the writ petition which is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
11. At this juncture, it will be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to
the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no
application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds
mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
12. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47
Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a
review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
(1) Application for review of judgment- Any person
considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and
important’ matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or
order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis
supplied)
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate
Court the case on which he applied for the review.
Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior
Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review
of such judgment.”
5
13. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported
in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:-
“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
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.”
14. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 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
record and would not require any long-drawn process
6of 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.
15. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity
Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the
petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the disguise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions,
which have already been addressed and decided.”
16. 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.”
17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgments, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the instant review petition is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Rekha