Gohil, J. - 1. Petitioners have filed this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC against the order dated 21.9.1999 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in M.A. No. 169/1996 by which the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that after the death of respondent No.2, who was the owner of the vehicle, his LRs were not brought on record and application for dispensing with service was filed and the name of the respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle, was deleted at the risk of the appellant. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal under the provisions of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which clearly indicate that a liability stand cast upon the Insurer to indemnify against the third party risk on the establishment of the fact that insured was liable to pay the damages to a third party. The provisions of Act do not require that the insurer must indemnify the third party independently of the liability of the insured. Where the insured is liable directly or vicariously to pay the damages is a question governed by law of torts and considering the various provisions of Motor Vehicle Act by a detailed order dismissed the appeal. Against which this petition for review has been filed.

2. This review petition which has been filed on 19.6.2000 prima fade appears to be barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay had been filed. On 17.3.2004 when case came up for hearing in the order-sheet it has been mentioned that list the petition for admission after delay in filing application is decided. But thereafter case was not listed for the same as no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Therefore, apparently the review petition appears to be barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Secondly, there is no specific provision under the Motor Vehicle Act for review. In section 169 and Rule 240 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, certain provisions of the CPC have been made applicable for deciding the claim petition but certainly there is no specific provision that the review petition can be filed in cases of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or in the appeals arising out of Motor Vehicle Act. Prima fade, it appears that the provision Order 47 Rule 1, CPC are not applicable in Motor Vehicle Act cases but at this stage we leave this question open to be decided in some other case.

3. Shri N.D. Singhal submitted that after the aforesaid impugned order passed by the Division Bench on 21.9.1999 in MA No. 169/99, the Full Bench of M.P. High Court in MA No. 98/1997 [Smt. Jamunabai and others v. Chhotesingh and others] has over-ruled the aforesaid Division Bench decision and has held that appeal shall not fail on account of dispensing with notice upon the respondents, who were ex parte before the Court of first instance. Therefore, it is submitted by Shri Singhal that review application is maintainable. Shri Singhal further argued that the case cannot be dismissed on the ground of technicalities and there should be apparent justice in the case. He placed reliance in the case of Lily Thomas, etc. etc. v. Union of India and others [AIR 2000 SC 1650].

4. On the contrary, Shri S. Gajendragadkar, submitted that as per the explanation appended to Rule 1 of Order 47, the fact that the decision on the question of law on which judgment of the Court is based, has been reversed and modified by the subsequent decision by the Court is not a ground for review of such judgment. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others [1997 (8) SCC 715] wherein the Supreme Court on the scope of review held as under:

"When the mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, then only review petition is maintainable and if the order is self-evident there cannot be interference in the review petition."

5. Shri S. Gajendragadkar, further submitted that in the similar circumstances that when the