D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This civil review has been preferred for reviewing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 03 of 2004, dated 19th December, 2008, mainly for the following reasons; (a) Counsel for the applicant (original appellant) submitted that while deciding, Appeal from Original Order No. 03 of 2004, evidence of applicant's witness no. 3 Mohan Kumar was not properly appreciated which is to be read with the deposition given by opposite party witness no. 1 Abhimanyu Singh. (b) For additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C., application was preferred before this Hon'ble Court which was never appreciated. (c) While deciding Appeal from Original Order No. 03 of 2004, this Court had not appreciated Ext-E in the light of Ext-B, which are nothing ,but, the weighment slip and the signatures of the original driver upon the different receipts, which are Ext.-B and on the basis of aforesaid documents etc. it is submitted that the vital aspect of the matters has been lost sight of, by this Court while deciding Appeal from Original Order No. 03 of 2004, vide order dated 19th December, 2008.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this civil review application, mainly for the following facts and reasons; (i) Looking to the order passed by this Court dated 19th December, 2008, all the arguments, which were canvassed by the counsel for the appellant, have been appreciated and have been dealt with. (ii) No civil review can be filed to argue out those points, which were left out, while arguing the earlier matter. Moreover, here, in the facts of the present case, once again this applicant ( original appellant) wants to argue in detail, with fine nicety of the depositions given by Mohan Kumar as well as with fine nicety of deposition given by Abhimanyu Singh, who are Applicant Witness No. 3 and Opposite Party Witness No. 1 respectively. Thus, civil review is nothing ,but, the detail arguments, which were already canvassed, at the time of earlier hearing. This is not permissible in the eye of law, otherwise there will be no end of further detail arguments after couple of years. A review, is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but, lies only for patent error. 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 record, justifying the court to exercise review power. (iii) Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that some additional evidences were not appreciated by this Court, while deciding Appeal from Original Order No. 03 of 2004, this argument is also not accepted for reviewing the order, mainly for the reason that this Appeal from Original Order is nothing, but, appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. New arguments cannot be appreciated at the stage of review application, otherwise, no finality can be attached to any arguments and much less to any decision. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out by the applicant that those documents were not in the custody of this applicant at the relevant time and they have been procured subsequently. (iv) Counsel for the applicant has further argued that documents at Ext-E has not been properly appreciated in the light of Ext-B, which are nothing but the weighment slip dated 23rd November, 1999, the day on which the husband of this applicant had expired and Ext-B are different receipts signed by the original driver. None of these contentions are helpful to this applicant for reviewing of the order, mainly for the reasons that these arguments are nothing but re-visitation of the earlier opportunity for argument granted by this Court, if this will be allowed, perhaps, after several couple of years, new counsel can argue the case in a better manner. (v) This civil review application is an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
(3.) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, 1979 4 SCC 389, at Para no. 3 as under : "3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.";