The power of review is limited to specified circumstances and cannot be exercised without new and important evidence or due diligence in producing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Naidu, J. - The order dated 1 st September,2008 passed in M.A. No. 308 of 2002 is sought to be reviewed in this petition.

2. The Petitioners as claimants had filed MACT Misc.Case No. 44/152 of 1998/1983 before the 4th MACT, Puri for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 on account of death of one Dibakar Jena who was the husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of the other Petitioners. His death occurred in a motor vehicle accident caused by a bus bearing registration number OLRC 9446. Before the tribunal the claimants got two witnesses examined in support of their case, but then they did not exhibit any document. Their claim was repudiated by the owner of the offending bus as well as the National Insurance Company. As documents like FIR, police papers, post-mortem report in respect of the deceased and other medical papers were not exhibited the tribunal dismissed the MACT Misc.Case on contest.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the tribunal, the Petitioners had filed the aforesaid appeal before this Court u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal was listed before the Bench on 5-5-2008. This Court called for the LCR and granted opportunity to the Appellants to produce necessary records like FIR and copies of Post Mortem Report. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on a number of occasion and was finally heard and disposed of on 1-9-2008 observing that though enough opportunity was given to the Appellants to produce the aforesaid documents by way of additional evidence the said opportunity was not availed by the Appellants. Considering the submissions and after going through the materials available on record, and finding that the statements of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants before the tribunal vis-a-vis the averments made in the claim petition were contradictory and that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment this Court dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in spite of best efforts the claimant-petitioners could not obtain the necessary documents. It is further submitted that though they had approached the local police officers no documents were made available to them. After disposal of the appeal they made application under the Right to Information Act and could procure certain documents. In view of availability of the documents now, it is submitted that the order may be reviewed.

5. Law is well settled that an order can be reviewed only if a new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time the decree was passed or order was made; or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason the Court desires so to do. It is no more res integra that review means a judicial re-examination of the case in certain specified and prescribed circumstance. The power of review is a creature of statute and a court cannot review its own decision unless the aforesaid criteria are satisfied.

6. In the case at hand, the documents were in fact within the knowledge of the claimant-petitioners. If copies thereof were not supplied to them by the concerned authorities, it was open to them to seek to call for the same through court. Thus it cannot be said that they had exercised due diligence. Perusal of the order passed by this Court reveals that enough opportunity had been granted to the Petitioners to produce the documents, inasmuch as on 5-5-2008 they had been granted such opportunity and about four months' time had been granted. In spite of such opportunity no document was produced. Even no petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioner in the appeal praying liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. Consequently the matter was taken up for final hearing and disposed of on the basis of materials available. This Court observed that there were a lot of discrepancies between the evidence