Order :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant review application is preferred by Narendra Sharma seeking review of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 202/2018, whereby the restoration application preferred for restoration of S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application No. 1324/2011 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was dismissed, s same having been held to be barred by law of limitation and filed after a delay of 2378 days, and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay having been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds and documents submitted along with the present application, has submitted that against the judgment dated 15.12.2007 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 171/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was filed by plaintiff Bhuri Devi and when the said appeal was listed for admission on 28.01.2009, and was dismissed for non- prosecution. He further submitted that petitioner Bhuri Devi filed Restoration Application No. 1324/2011, which was dismissed on 02.08.2011 in wake of pre-emptory order dated 23.04.2011.

3. He further submitted that a restoration application has been filed to restore the restoration application by the legal heir of Bhuri Devi (since deceased) on the ground that Bhuri Devi expired on 07.04.2015 and Narendra Kumar is 100% blind. He further submitted that the restoration application was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2025 as there was no supporting document to show and justify the reasons of delay.

4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Rafiq vs. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400; The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S.S. Sarvesh, (2019) 5 SCC 144; and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 292, and submitted that if any appeal is dismissed for default of appellant’s counsel, then the principle is that a party should not suffer on account of the mistake, default or inaction of his counsel. He further submitted that to do substantial justice between the parties, it is necessary to consider the case of the present petitioner and hear the matter on merits.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is 100% blind and son of illiterate plaintiff Smt. Bhuri Devi. He further referred to the physical disabilities and submitted that to provide access to justice, it is necessary to reconsider the case and the order be reviewed in light of the fact that Bhuri Devi was suffering from cancer and she remained under treatment for the last few years of her life and later expired whereas only legal representation is blind.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that a review petition cannot be preferred to review the order passed on merits. He further referred to the judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1304, and submitted that the scope of review is very limited. He further referred to the judgment in the case of Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna & Another, Civil Appeal No. _/2025 (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876).

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

8. The facts of the case are that Bhuri Devi, plaintiff, filed a Civil Suit No. 41/1995 and the same was decreed in favour of plaintiff Bhuri Devi on 27.11.2003 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Bharatpur. Aggrieved thereof, UIT filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and the same was registered and decided as Civil Regular Appeal No. 171/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur. The appellate court allowed the appeal of UIT and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003.

9. The plaintiff Bhuri Devi filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/