Madras High Court
Ayangaran Film International ... vs S.Venmathi on 2 February, 2021
Review Application No.48 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02-02-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Review Application No.48 of 2020
1.Ayangaran Film International Media Pvt. Ltd.,
No.147/11, III Floor,
Rajparis Trimeni Towers,
G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
2.C.Arun Pandian,
Managing Partner,
Ayangaran Film International Media Pvt. Ltd.,
No.147/11, III Floor,
Rajparis Trimeni Towers,
G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
3.K.Sundaraj .. Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Venmathi
2.S.Sanjay (Minor)
3.S.Sandhya (Minor)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.48 of 2020
4.Mr.Raju
5.Gemini Arts (P) Ltd.,
Carrying business at,
No.601, Anna Salai,
Gemini Arts Buildings,
Chennai.
6.Mr.Suganandan
(Minors R-3&R-4 represented by their mother-
natural guardian S.Venmathi R-1) .. Respondents
PRAYER : The Review Application is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
against the order of this Court dated 06.12.2019 made in CMP No.13228 of
2019 in AS SR No.130186 of 2018.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.L.Narayanan
For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.V.P.Rajendran
ORDER
The Review Application is filed to review the order dated
06.12.2019 passed in CMP No.13228 of 2019 in A.S.SR No.130186 of
2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.48 of 2020
2. Perusal of the grounds for review reveal that the petitioners
have taken an attempt to re-adjudicate the issues on merits.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states
that all along the petitioners were pursuing the judicial remedy and
therefore, the delay was neither willful nor wanton and to be condoned.
4. It is not, as if, the judicial remedy can be pursued and after
reaching finality, once again they can file another appeal in respect of
judgment and decree passed in a original suit.
5. The facts and circumstances were already adjudicated by this
Court and the order was passed on 06.12.2019. The scope of review is
undoubtedly limited. Only if there is an error apparent, then alone the power
of review can be exercised and not otherwise.
6. As far as the condone delay is concerned, this Court settled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.48 of 2020
the principles that uncondonable delay cannot be condoned and the reasons
must be candid for the purpose of condoning enormous delay.
7. In the present case, the delay is more than 5 years and the
facts and circumstances were considered by this Court and the grounds
raised in the present Review Application to re-adjudicate the matter on
merits, cannot be entertained. Thus, the grounds for reviewing the order is
not convincing and therefore, the Review Application No.48 of 2020 stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
02-02-2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.48 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
Review Application No.48 of 2020
02-02-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
