- (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record. By means of present review petition under section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. read with Rule 14 Chapter IX of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the review petitioner sought for review of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in Civil Revision No. 61 of 2014 (United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Meera Diwedi and others). Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the review petitioner has argued the review petition mainly on the following ground: "Because in a similar matter decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 45/2014 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and others) set aside the judgment of the Tribunal directed the Tribunal to register the claim petition in original number and frame necessary issues having regard to the pleadings of the parties and in the said case also the offending vehicle and it owner was not impleaded."
(2.) Before dealing the submission which has been raised by learned Counsel for the review petitioner in the matter in issue, I feel it appropriate to see the ambit scope and parameters in which the Court can review its earlier order. In this regard Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur., 1964 AIR(SC) 1372. The Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
(3.) Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 2537 the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.;