FMAT(MV)/4/2025 of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs SHRI.MOHAMMED ASLAM AND ANR on 29 September 2026

1. This is an application seeking for review of the judgement passed by this Court dated 29.09.2026 in connection with FMAT (MV)/4/2025.

2. The principal question which falls for consideration is whether the judgment and order dated 29.09.2026 passed in FMAT (MV) No. 4 of 2025 calls for review merely on the ground that certain submissions, stated to have been advanced on behalf of the applicant and referred to in the review application, have not been specifically recorded in the judgment.

3. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court exercising the power of review is very limited and circumscribed by well- defined parameters. Review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review cannot be exercised for the purpose of re- hearing the matter, reconsidering the evidence, re-appreciating the arguments advanced by the parties, or substituting one possible view for another.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, holding that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal; that an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected in review; that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be an appeal in disguise; and that the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order.

5. It is profitable to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred case as follows- “15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 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. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.”

6. The Apex Court has specifically emphasised that the review jurisdiction cannot be employed to rehear and correct an erroneous decision and the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment. It has further reiterated that the power of review is available for correction of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record and not for substituting one view by another. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the review Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over its own judgment.

7. In the present case, the principal grievance appears to be that the submissions allegedly advanced at the time of hearing as mentioned in the review application have not been separately recorded in the judgment dated 29.09.2026. The mere omission to reproduce each and every submission of the learned advocates in extenso cannot, by itself, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. A judgment is required to record the material issues which arise for determination and the reasons for the conclusion reached; it is not necessary that every oral submission, contention or argument advanced during the course of hearing should find verbatim or elaborate reproduction in the judgment.

8. The Court must, therefore, guard against the temptation to enter into a re-examination of the merits of the judgment dated 29.09.2026 merely because the applicant perceives that certain submissions have not been adequately reflected in the judgment. The omission of an argument from the narration of submissions is not, in itself, an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly where correction of the alleged omission would require a reconsideration of the merits or a fresh adjudication of the appeal.

9. Accordingly the instant application for review is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

10. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited before this Court at the time of filing of the appeal vide cheque no.073128 dated-17.03.2025, may be directed to hand over the same to the appellant/Insurance Company.

11. Considered.

12. Having regard to the submission so made, the learned Registrar is hereby directed to hand over cheque for the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the duly authorised representative of the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, upon completion of all requisite formalities..

( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )