Gnanasambandam vs Gandhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2276 Mad

                                                                                REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 02.02.2021

                                                          CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

                     Gnanasambandam                                                ..Appellant
                                                             vs.

                     Gandhi                                                         .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Review Application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47
                     Rule 1 of C.P.C, to review the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in
                     C.M.P.No.4686 of 2020.


                                   For Petitioner              : Mr.S.Patrick



                                                      ORDER

The Review Application is filed to review the order dated

28.02.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.4686 of 2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a

Senior Citizen and diabetic patient. He met with a minor accident which

resulted fracture in the right ankle and therefore, he was unable to file the

appeal in time.

3. The delay of 473 days is enormous. This Court has considered the

facts and circumstances and rejected the application to condone the delay.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the aliments like Diabetic

cannot be a reason to condone the delay of 473 days. When the appeal is

filed against the judgment and decree passed in a suit, the reasons must be

candid. In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the

miscellaneous petition reveals that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and

diabetic patient. Though it was stated that he is a Senior Citizen, in the very

same affidavit, the petitioner is aged about 55 years. A person, who aged

about 55 years, is not a Senior Citizen and therefore, the petitioner has not

approached this Court with clean hands in the present Review application.

Thus, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the

purpose of entertaining the review application. The scope of review is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

limited and only if an error is apparent, which is brought to the notice of this

Court, the application for review can be entertained and not otherwise. In

the present case, the petitioner has made an attempt to re-adjudicate the

matter on merits, which is impermissible and accordingly, the review

application stands dismissed. No costs.

02.02.2021

ssb Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssb

REV.APL.No.81 of 2020

02.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/