Jeyalakshmi vs J. Gajalakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 16067 Mad

                                                                       Rev.Appl (MD) No.37 of 2021

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 6/8/2021

                                                     CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                             Rev.Appl (MD) No.37 of 2021


                      Jeyalakshmi                         ....       Petitioner

                                                         Vs

                      1. J. Gajalakshmi

                      2. R. Maheswari

                      3. J. Venugopal

                      4. J. Balaji

                      5. J. Bhuvaneswari                  ...        Respondents

                            Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section
                      114 of Cr.P.C., to review the judgment and decree passed in A.S.(MD)
                      No.306 of 2008, dated 5/1/2021.


                            For petitioner                ...        Mr.N.R.Murugesan




                      1/4


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                            Rev.Appl (MD) No.37 of 2021




                                                       ORDER

This Review Application has been filed to review the judgment and

decree passed in A.S.(MD) No.306 of 2008, dated 5/1/2021.

2. Heard Mr.N.R.Murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

condition in the sale agreement has not been dealt with properly. There is a

specific condition in the sale agreement that the plaintiff has to pay the

Bank, within a stipulated period, which has not been considered by this

Court. Therefore, it is his contention that the judgment has to be reviewed.

4. Review can be ordered only when there is an error apparent on the

face of the record or if the decree was passed on some glaring mistakes and

any other discovery have been unearthed later as contemplated, under

Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure. Review cannot be automatic.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl (MD) No.37 of 2021

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

countenanced, for the simple reason that while deciding the appeal, this

Court took note of the nature of the conditions, governing the parties and

categorically held that the delay was only due to the failure of the defendant

to give authorisation to pay such amount to the Bank. All these facts have

been considered by this Court. Under the pretext of review application,

what is sought to be urged before this Court is only to rehear the matter on

merits once again. This Court do not find any merit in this Review

Application.

6. Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed.

6/8/2021

mvs.

http://www.judis.nic.in Rev.Appl (MD) No.37 of 2021

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J

mvs.

Rev.APLC (MD) No.37 of 2021

6/8/2021

http://www.judis.nic.in