The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition should be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of the relevant procedural rules and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

Heard Shri D. S. Patni, counsel for the review applicant.

2. Present review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment and order dated 16-7-2007. The review appli cant has prayed to the following effect:

"it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present review application and to re view the judgment and order dated 16-7-2007 passed by this Honble Court and to reduce the interest from 12% per annum to 7. 5 per cent per annum, otherwise the appellant Insurance Company shall suffer ir reparable loss and injury. "

3. Earlier the appeal was dismissed by me on 16-7-2007 on the ground that no permission under Section 170 of the Mo tor Vehicles Act has been obtained chal lenging the quantum of compensation as held in Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456. The Apex Court in Nicoletta Rohtagis case has held as under :

"in Shankarayya u. United India In surance Co. Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 140, it was held that an insurance com pany when impleaded as a party by the court can be permitted to con test the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent men tioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and which should be a reasoned or der by the Tribunal. Unless this pro cedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider de fence on merits than what is avail able to it by way of statutory defence. In absence of the existence of the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170, the insurance com pany was not entitled to file an ap peal on merits questioning the quan tum of compensation. "

4. In view of the aforesaid, the ap peal preferred by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed on 16-7-2007.

5. So far as the merit of the present review petition is concerned, it is well-settled that the review petition can be filed only for consideration of important matters or evidence which, by mistake or error on the face of the record could not be considered when the order was passed. A review petition cannot be filed for re-hearing of the entire matter by changing the counsel as well.

6. The Honble Apex Court in the case M/s. Northern India Cateres (India) Ltd. us. It. Governor of Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 36 has observed as under :

"it is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judg ment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The nor mal principle is that a judgment pro nounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is jus tified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so : Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For in stance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta 15. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Consti tution and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil

proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Or der 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal pro ceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules i966 ). But whatever the natures of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document