##PAGE1##

RA-CR-203-2025 (O&M)

IN FAO-5293-2023 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

283 RA-CR-203-2025 (O&M)

IN FAO-5293-2023

Date of Decision: 29.01.2026

Navraj Kaur and others .…Applicant-Appellants

Versus

Sunny Maish and others .... Non-applicant/Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Vikas Kumar, Gupta, Advocate

for the applicant-appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The applicant-appellant has filed the present review

application under Section 114 CPC for review of the order dated

25.04.2025, passed by this Court whereby the main appeal bearing

No. FAO-5293-2023 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant-claimants have filed the main

appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹74,93,842/- awarded by

the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh passed in

MACP No. 317 dated 31.05.2017, filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. Vide order/judgment under review dated 25.04.2025,

the main appeal was dismissed on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicants submits that the

order dated 25.04.2025 deserves to be reviewed on account of the fact that

the learned Tribunal as well as this Court has not granted any interest on

the amount of compensation. Learned counsel submits that although at the

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 21:52:43 :::

RA-CR-203-2025 (O&M)

IN FAO-5293-2023 -2-

time of final arguments, the prayer for grant of interest upon the

compensation amount was not pressed, but the same was made in para

No. 5 of grounds of appeal. It is accordingly prayed that the order dated

25.04.2025 be reviewed.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the review applicant.

5. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

6. Perusal of the order under review reveals that no argument

qua grant of interest upon the compensation amount was ever raised by

learned counsel for the applicant-appellant during the course of final

arguments.

7. In any event, it is established position in law that a review

application is not meant to permit the review-applicants to re-argue the

entire case and raise the points that could have been raised during the

initial hearing. As noted above, order dated 25.04.2025 was passed in the

presence of learned counsel for the review-applicant. Merely because the

review-applicant failed to raise an argument qua grant of interest at the

time of hearing of the main matter, cannot constitute sufficient ground to

review the order dated 25.04.2025. An order passed by this Court can be

reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning

thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. The

Review Application is not meant to re-agitate arguments or pleadings that

were omitted during the hearing of the main matter. As such, I find no

such error in the order dated 25.04.2025. Rather, as noted above, by way

of the present Review Application, the review applicant is seeking to

reargue and reagitate the main appeal.

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 03-02-2026 21:52:44 :::

RA-CR-203-2025 (O&M)

IN FAO-5293-2023 -3-

8. Reliance is also placed on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another” SLP(C)

No. 12787 of 2025 decided on 08.09.2025, wherein principles for review

jurisdiction have been laid down in Para 15, which reads as follows: -

“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be

assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the

rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction

cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the

authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of

CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power

of review is different from appellate power and is subject to

the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial

decisions:

15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal

and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of

Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers