Review petitions cannot substitute for appeals; an error must be evident in the prior judgment for a review to be granted.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), seeking to review the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Court in MACMA No.2888 of 2012.

2. The review petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant by filing vakalat of a new Counsel Sri P. Raj Kumar, which was filed into the Court on 09.01.2025, under 'no objection vakalat' issued by the earlier Counsel Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao.

3. Heard Sri P. Raj Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Perused the record.

4. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Counsel on record for the petitioner/appellant gave No Objection Vakalat and no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024. It is his further submission that because of communication gap and inadvertently, vakalat by the present Counsel could not be filed within time and before hearing of the appeal to prosecute the appeal.

He also urged certain grounds, which touch the merits of the case, which inter alia include that in view of Ex.A7-agreement, respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to share in compensation, and that mere releasing terminal benefits of the deceased in favour of the petitioner/appellant does not disentitle her from receiving entire compensation as per the settlement.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 strenuously contended that by the time the appeal came up for hearing on 29.11.2024, no fresh vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and name of the earlier Counsel was printed in cause list and he was representing the case. It is his further submission that this Court, after hearing both the Counsel, passed the reasoned judgment, dismissing the MACMA, confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal, and there is no error apparent on the face of record, so as to review the judgment.

He also submitted on merits of the appeal that after demise of the deceased, the petitioner/appellant obtained signatures of respondents 4 and 5 on the premise that the same are required for obtaining terminal benefits of their son, and that Ex.A7 is a fabricated document; that the evidence of RW1 substantiates the same, and that the petitioner/appellant having obtained terminal and service benefits of their son, did not pay a single pie to respondents 4 and 5. He submits that considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded share in the compensation to the respondents 4 and 5, and this Court rightly affirmed the same by way of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the review petition.

6. Review of an order has to be considered in the light of the principles as laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which read thus :

"Application for review of judgment.-(1) 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 decr