Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or new evidence discovered despite due diligence; it cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-argue merits or introduce documents deliberately withheld.

Judgment On Board

1. Heard on admission.

2. This review petition has been preferred by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to review the order passed in MAC No.2307 of 2025 dated 25.02.2026, whereby, an appeal preferred by the applicants herein challenging the award passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.986 of 2023 was dismissed.

3. The Miscellaneous Appeal No.2307 of 2025 was dismissed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It was also observed in the order that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce driving licence before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the tune of Rs.24,23,290/- to the claimant with interest @ 7% per annum and liability was fastened with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle with stipulation of pay and recover.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants herein would refer to Annexure A/3 the driving licence which was issued in favour of the driver of the offending truck. The driving licence was valid for Non-Transport Vehicle from 15.06.2010 to 13.06.2030 and for Transport Hazardous from 30.07.2021 to 29.07.2026. He would submit that on the date of accident that was on 03.10.2023, the driver of the offending truck did have valid and effective driving licence. He would further submit that this aspect of the matter was not considered at the time of final hearing of MAC No.2307 of 2025. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik , reported in 2025(4) SCC 321, particularly para 38, wherein, it is held that Section 114 read with Order 47 of CPC permits the court to look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. Para 38 is reproduced herein below :

“38 . Section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC does permit the court to look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. It would invariably reduce to an examination.”

5. It is not a case where the applicants herein despite due diligence failed to produce driving licence before the learned Tribunal rather they deliberately failed to produce said document though they had ample opportunities. Even along with memo of appeal, said document was not produced and for the first time, said driving licence has been produced in this Review Petition, therefore, the judgment passed in the matter of Mahadeo Krishna Naik(supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case.

6. In the matter of Hind Samachar Limited (Delhi Unit) Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2026(2) SCC 773, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgments passed in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru , reported in 2003(3) SCC 338 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Devi , reported in 2024(13) SCC 755. Mr. Sharma would pray for recall of order dated 25.02.2026 passed in MAC No.2307 of 2025.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material/documents available on