IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.167 of 2007 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus KAMALI DEVI & ORS ----------- 5 27.08.2008 I.A. No. 3989/2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the Civil Review petition. From the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown due to which Civil Review petition could not be filed earlier. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed and delay in the filing of Civil Review petition is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Review petition has been filed on behalf of New India Assurance Company Ltd. for review of order of this Court dated 31.10.2006, by which Misc. Appeal No. 381/2006 was dismissed as not maintainable. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 19.4.2006 by which the learned Court of Claims Tribunal-cum- Ist Additional District Judge, Darbhanga, allowed claim case no. 41/2001 filed by Opposite party nos. 1 and 2. In the said appeal, Stamp report dated 20.10.2006 was made in which it was found that in paragraph no. 5(h) of the statement of fact, it was mentioned that no order has been passed on petition filed under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Court below and the said statement was supported by a copy of order - 2 - dated 11.1.2005 (Annexurre-5A). It was also found that on going through the last line of paragraph no. 5 of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Insurance Company contested the Court till the last and was permitted by the learned Court below to cross-examine the witnesses also on behalf of other opposite parties. Hence under the circumstances, it was found that it was not clear as to whether the permission granted in the last sentence of paragraph no. 5 of the certified copy of the impugned judgment relates to section 170 of the Act or not. It was also submitted that paragraph nos. (ii) to (v), (vii) and (viii) of the grounds do not appear to be covered under section 149(2) of the Act and appeal filed by Insurance company on such ground does not appear to be maintainable in absence of permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980. In the aforesaid circumstances, when the case was listed for order on 31.10.2006, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to contest the said stamp report and accordingly this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the Miscellaneous appeal as not maintainable. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this petition nor does it find any reason to take a view different from what was taken by this Court on the earlier occasion. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. pkj (S.N.Hussain,J)