A pending Order IX Rule 13 application does not warrant review of a merits judgment.

The vehicle owner sought review or recall of the High Court’s judgment dated 27 February 2026 in MAC No. 240 of 2023.

He submitted that an ex parte award had been passed against him by the Claims Tribunal and that his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside that award was pending; he contended this had not been brought to the Court’s attention when it decided the appeal.

The owner and driver had been proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal and, despite service, did not appear before the High Court in the appeal.

Whether the pending application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the Claims Tribunal constituted a ground to review or recall the High Court’s decision in MAC No. 240 of 2023.

Whether the review petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record or another permissible ground for review.

Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review, among other grounds, where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; an error requiring a process of reasoning is not apparent, and review cannot be used to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision or function as an appeal in disguise (Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, as quoted at para. 5).

The Court also relied on the principles that review is not an appeal, cannot substitute one view for another, and is confined to the statutory scope of review (Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, quoting Inderchand Jain and Lily Thomas).

It further cited the limited scope of review and the bar on re-agitating matters already decided (M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board).

The Court noted that a subsequent change in law or decision is not, by itself, a ground for review (Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy).

The High Court found that the original MAC decision had been made on the merits after considering the facts and material on record.

The existence of a pending Order IX Rule 13 CPC application before the Tribunal did not establish an error apparent in that decision or otherwise justify review.

As the petition sought recall or modification without demonstrating a permissible review ground, granting relief would exceed the limited review jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the review petition seeking modification or recall of the judgment dated 27 February 2026 in MAC No. 240 of 2023.