JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), seeking to review the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Court in MACMA No.2888 of 2012. 2. The review petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant by filing vakalat of a new Counsel Sri P. Raj Kumar, which was filed into the Court on 09.01.2025, under 'no objection vakalat' issued by the earlier Counsel Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao. 3. Heard Sri P. Raj Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Perused the record. 4. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Counsel on record for the petitioner/appellant gave No Objection Vakalat and no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024. It is his further submission that because of communication gap and inadvertently, vakalat by the present Counsel could not be filed within time and before hearing of the appeal to prosecute the appeal. He also urged certain grounds, which touch the merits of the case, which inter alia include that in view of Ex.A7-agreement, respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to share in compensation, and that mere releasing terminal benefits of the deceased in favour of the petitioner/appellant does not disentitle her from receiving entire compensation as per the settlement. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 strenuously contended that by the time the appeal came up for hearing on 29.11.2024, no fresh vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and name of the earlier Counsel was printed in cause list and he was representing the case. It is his further submission that this Court, after hearing both the Counsel, passed the reasoned judgment, dismissing the MACMA, confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal, and there is no error apparent on the face of record, so as to review the judgment. It is his further submission that this Court, after hearing both the Counsel, passed the reasoned judgment, dismissing the MACMA, confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal, and there is no error apparent on the face of record, so as to review the judgment. He also submitted on merits of the appeal that after demise of the deceased, the petitioner/appellant obtained signatures of respondents 4 and 5 on the premise that the same are required for obtaining terminal benefits of their son, and that Ex.A7 is a fabricated document; that the evidence of RW1 substantiates the same, and that the petitioner/appellant having obtained terminal and service benefits of their son, did not pay a single pie to respondents 4 and 5. He submits that considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded share in the compensation to the respondents 4 and 5, and this Court rightly affirmed the same by way of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the review petition. 6. Review of an order has to be considered in the light of the principles as laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which read thus : "Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. 7. The substantive power conferred under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as condition precedent for exercise of power of review nor imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power of review. However, an order can be reviewed on any of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 7. The substantive power conferred under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as condition precedent for exercise of power of review nor imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power of review. However, an order can be reviewed on any of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under the aforesaid provision. A review petition cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. In Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through LRs. and others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others, (2021) 13 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the aforesaid principles. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the MACMA was filed by the petitioner/appellant, who is daughter-in law of respondents 4 and 5, aggrieved by awarding share in the compensation amount to the respondents 4 and 5, who are her parents-in-law, in the compensation awarded vide Order dated 20.07.2012 in MOP No.1092 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 9. The facts of the case are that one Budumajji Ramakrishna Rao (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased'), who is husband of the petitioner/appellant and son of respondents 4 and 5, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.07.2007. The petitioner/appellant filed MOP No.1092 of 2007 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-, by arraying her parents-in-law as respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2012, allowed the M.O.P. partly, awarding a sum of Rs.11,87,600/- towards compensation to the petitioner/appellant and the respondents 4 and 5, with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal ordered that out of the compensation amount, the petitioner/appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.5,87,600/- and the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each. The Tribunal ordered that out of the compensation amount, the petitioner/appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.5,87,600/- and the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each. Aggrieved by awarding share to respondents 4 and 5, who are her parents-in-law, the petitioner/appellant preferred the MACMA, and obtained an interim order restraining respondents 4 and 5 from receiving any amount under the subject Award. Respondents 4 and 5 filed IA No.1 of 2024 in the MACMA, alongwith counter-affidavit in MACMA, praying to vacate the said interim order. On 29.11.2024, the appeal, alongwith vacate stay petition, was listed before this Court. Name of the Advocate on record for the petitioner/appellant was listed on that day. This Court heard both the Counsel and dismissed the MACMA, consequently vacated the interim order. 10. Thereafter, the present review petition has been filed on 09.01.2025 by the petitioner/appellant by filing vakalat of a new Counsel Sri P. Raj Kumar, under 'no objection vakalat' issued by the earlier Counsel Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Counsel on record for the petitioner/appellant gave No Objection Vakalat and no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024, and because of communication gap and inadvertently, vakalat by the present Counsel could not be filed within time and before hearing of the appeal. A perusal of the endorsement on the vakalat filed alongwith the review petition shows that the Counsel who filed the review, accepted the No Objection Vakalat on 05.01.2024. But, no 'No Objection Vakalat' was filed into the Court by the time the appeal came up for hearing on 29.11.2024. Name of the Counsel on record was printed in the cause list, and an Advocate, representing the Counsel on record put forth submissions, and upon considering arguments of both sides, this Court passed judgment on 29.11.2024, on merits, dismissing the MACMA, by confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024, is factually incorrect. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024, is factually incorrect. His contention that because of communication gap and inadvertently, vakalat by the present Counsel could not be filed within time and before hearing of the appeal, appears to be an afterthought, only to protract the litigation further. The M.O.P. before the Tribunal was filed in the year 2007 and the present MACMA is of the year 2012. Having obtained interim order restraining the respondents, who are old aged parents of the deceased, from receiving the amounts granted by the Tribunal, the appeal was dragged on, for about 12 years. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant is wholly unsustainable and is not a ground to review the judgment passed by this Court. 11. Having knowledge that the MACMA is dismissed by this Court on 29.11.2024, the petitioner filed vakalat of a new Counsel on 09.01.2025, under 'no objection vakalat' and filed the present review petition. The practice of filing applications by changing Advocates is not only obnoxious but also reprehensive. Even the learned Counsel is expected to verify the facts and events, before venturing to file applications of this nature, since he may not have first-hand information regarding the events took place on an earlier occasion. In T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the Advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice." In Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar, (2020) 13 SCC 188 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus : "As aforesaid, in the present case, the Counsel who was engaged by the appellant and had appeared for him before the High Court did not, strict sensu, transgress the authority conferred on him by the appellant. Notably, the appellant filed review petition before the High Court by engaging another Advocate for reasons best known to him. Notably, the appellant filed review petition before the High Court by engaging another Advocate for reasons best known to him. This Court has deprecated the conduct of such petitioners and has opined that such review petitions should not be encouraged and need to be dismissed, as expounded in T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Raddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 ." 12. As is evident from the judgment passed by this Court in MACMA, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was present and argued the appeal. Having done so, filing the present petition by engaging another Advocate, by stating that no one represented the case on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on 29.11.2024, is deprecated. If this type of application is entertained, it will open a cumbersome box to the litigants. 13. Even on merits of the appeal, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of Ex.A7-agreement executed by respondents 4 and 5, they are not entitled to any share in the compensation amount. It is his further contention that mere release of terminal benefits of the deceased in favour of the petitioner/appellant, does not disentitle her from receiving entire compensation as per the settlement. These aspects have been elaborately dealt with, by this Court in the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in the MACMA and the same were rejected by this Court. 14. The respondents 4 and 5 are old aged parents of the deceased, aged about 74 and 78 years respectively. Substantial portion of the compensation awarded is towards loss of dependency. In view of death of the deceased, the respondents 4 and 5 suffered loss of dependency in that old age. For loss of dependency, the respondents 4 and 5 are legally entitled to share in the compensation awarded under that head. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal as well as this Court, categorically recording finding that any agreement, executed to the contrary, does not disentitle them to the legal entitlement, and that irrespective of the contents in Ex.A7, which are resiled, the respondents 4 and 5, being old aged parents of the deceased, are entitled to share in the compensation amount. The contention that the respondents 4 and 5 have other children, also is not a ground to deny share in compensation to them. The contention that the respondents 4 and 5 have other children, also is not a ground to deny share in compensation to them. There is no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground, calling for review of the judgment passed by this Court. The review petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, IA No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs.