IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN FAO-7200-2018 Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Kuldeep .… Review-applicant/appellant Versus Anil Kumar and others .... Non-applicant/Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Sachin Balda, Advocate for the review-applicant/appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The review-applicant/appellant/claimant has filed the present review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by this Court whereby the main appeal bearing No. FAO-7200-2018 along with connected appeal bearing No. FAO-3752-2018, was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant-claimant has filed the main appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹19,82,602/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal passed in Claim Petition No. 178 dated 09.07.2014 filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Vide order/judgment under review dated 20.01.2026, the main appeal was allowed and the amount of compensation was enhanced from ₹19,82,602/- to ₹51,60,602/-.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that the order dated 20.01.2026 deserves to be reviewed, on account of the fact that vide aforesaid order this Court had allowed the appeal filed by the review applicant; and the amount of compensation was enhanced from ₹19,82,602/- to ₹51,60,602/- but inadvertently, had not mentioned the enhanced rate of interest on the enhanced amount to compensation. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meagre rate of interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned counsel submits that the review-applicant/appellant in the Grounds of Appeal had made a specific prayer for enhancement of rate of interest from 6% per annum to 24% per annum, as per the latest judicial pronouncements. It is accordingly prayed that the order dated 20.01.2026 be reviewed by granting enhanced rate of interest.

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 enhanced rate 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-applicant to re-argue the entire case and raise the points that could have been raised during the initial hearing. The order under review dated 20.01.2026 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 enhanced rate of interest at the time of hearing of the main matter, cannot constitute sufficient ground to review the order dated 20.01.2026. 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 20.01.2026. Rather, as noted above, by way of the present Review Application, the review applicant is seeking to reargue and re-agitate the main appeal.

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 bylaw on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. T