Aroprint Global Private Limited Through The Authorized Director vs The New India Assurance Company Limted Through The Divisional Manger

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29800
1 RP-2343-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 2343 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020426382026
AROPRINT GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE
AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED THROUGH THE
DIVISIONAL MANGER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhil Godha - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje, Chief Justice
The present review application has been filed for review of the order
dated 14.10.2026 passed in W.A. No.3530/2026 with a prayer as under:-
"a) Review the order dated 14/10/2026 passed in Writ Appeal
Number 3530 of 2026, on the grounds of error apparent on the
face of the record and such other grounds as may be permissible in
law:

b) Reconsider the observations contained in paragraphs 06, 07 and
08 of the impugned order in light of the amended writ petition, the
order dated 21/01/2026 passed on I.A. No.6718/2025, the
judgment dated 16/07/2026 and the order dated 15/09/2026 passed
on I.A. No. 9277/2026;

c) Consider and pass appropriate orders upon I.A.No.10857/2026
concerning maintainability and the jurisdictional objection, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 26-10-2026
18:40:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29800
2 RP-2343-2026
I.A. No. 10730/2026 concerning the defects in the appeal, to the
extent those applications remain undisposed of and such
consideration is permissible in the present proceedings:

d) Reconsider the observations in paragraph 10 of the impugned
order in light of the procedural history of Writ Petition Number
36267 of 2024 and the relevant record concerning the production
and disclosure of the Final Joint Survey Report;

e) Upon review, recall, modify, set-aside or suitably clarify the
impugned order to the extent warranted by the errors established
before this Hon'ble Court, and pass appropriate consequential
directions in accordance with law; and

f) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interests of justice."

2. The Court may forthwith refer to the pleadings by reproducing the
relevant pleadings, which read, thus:

"2.15 Further that, the paragraph 01 of the impugned order records
that the appeal has been filed against the order dated 16/07/2026,
is contrary to the contents of I.A. No.10730/2026 (Application for
Ignoring Defects), which has been filed on affidavit of the
appellant insurance company.

2.16 That the Petitioner respectfully submits that I.A.
No.10730/2026 expressly records that the appeal has not been
directed against the judgment dated 16/07/2026. The Petitioners
respectfully invite the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court to the
contents of the said application for consideration in the present
review proceedings.

2.17 That the contentions recorded in paragraph 05 of the
impugned order pertain to the interpretation of the judgment dated
16/07/2026. The Petitioners respectfully submit that, in IA.
No.10857/2026, they had specifically pleaded on affidavit that the
relief granted by the learned Writ Court was in terms of paragraph
07 of the said judgment. The Petitioners most respectfully leave
the matter for the kind consideration and determination of this
Hon'ble Court, in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 26-10-2026
18:40:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29800
3 RP-2343-2026

2.18 That paragraph 06 of the impugned order records as
follows:


“The petitioner in the process of the claim had
challenged acceptance of report of an investigator Mr.
Manish Goyal on the ground that there is no provision
for calling upon and relying upon a report of an
investigator while settling the claim of the petitioner."

2.19 That, with utmost respect, the aforesaid observation does
not appear to be borne out by the record. No report of Mr. Manish
Goyal was challenged by the Petitioner in the writ petition. The
challenge therein was directed against the appointment of a second
surveyor/investigator. The relevant averment in the writ petition
may kindly be considered in this regard. A certified copy of the
memo of Writ Petition Number 36267 of 2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure RP/07."
3. The tenor of the pleadings in this application virtually are the grounds
for appeal but cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the
record. At best, the same can be an error of fact. However, for such alleged
error of facts, review application is not the remedy available. It appears that
the root cause for preferring the present review application is the observation
made in para 10, which apparently may adversely affect the claim of the
applicant herein of interest pending the petition filed before this Court.
However, the Court may refer to the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the writ appeal and which is
recorded in para 8 of the order review of which is sought in the present
application. Apparently, it is during the course of argument of learned senior
advocate Shri Amit Agarwal that reference was made to the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 26-10-2026
18:40:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29800
4 RP-2343-2026
Policyholders' Interest) Regulations, 2017 and directions were issued in that

regard. The Court does not find any scope to review the order passed by this
Court even on the count of the submission made that the Court could not
have passed the order under review pending the IAs filed by the present
applicant. It is so as the Court has not issued any directions which may
adversely affect the rights of either parties and has only called upon the
concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others,
(2013) 8 SCC 320 has circumscribed the power of review by enumerating
the grounds on which a review is not maintainable. Relevant para 20.2 of the
said decision reads as under:-

"20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 26-10-2026
18:40:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29800
5 RP-2343-2026
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

5. In the opinion of the Court, the case of the present applicant will fall
under Clause (iv) and (v) of para 20.2 of the decision in the case of Kamlesh
Verma (supra).
6. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for review of the order.
Hence, the review application is dismissed.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE)
(VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
S/

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 26-10-2026
18:40:38