Madras High Court
A.Pakkirisamy vs Sri Siddhi Vinayakar Pillaiyar ... on 10 February, 2021
Rev.Appl No.49 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Review Application No.49 of 2020
in
C.M.A.No.2354 of 2013
and
C.M.P.No.6813 of 2020
A.Pakkirisamy ..Petitioner
Vs.
Sri Siddhi Vinayakar Pillaiyar Koil
rep.by its Hereditary Trustee Mr.M.Sowrirajan,
No.14, Nanayakkara Street,
Nagoor, Nagapattinam Taluk & District. ..Respondent
Prayer : Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC., against
the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.2354 of
2013 by Hon'ble Mrs.Justice S.Ramathilagam on the file of this Hon'ble
Court and prays the same way kindly review the order there is an error
apparent on the face of the record warranting to review the order dated
21.12.2018.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Ramya
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sounther
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Appl No.49 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The Review Petition on hand is filed to review the order dated
21.12.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.2354 of 2013.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Review
Petitioner mainly contended that the Trial Court held that the plaintiff in
the suit is not hereditary Trustee and he cannot represent the Temple as
hereditary Trustee and accordingly, the preliminary issue was decided in
favour of the Review Petitioner.
3.The plaintiff filed C.R.P. (PD). No.1546 of 2011 and the said
CRP was disposed of on 21.09.2012. Pursuant to the order passed in the
CRP., C.M.A.No.2354 of 2013 was also disposed of. C.M.A.No.2354 of
2013 was filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013
passed in A.S.No.45 of 2011, remanding the matter back to the Trial
Court for framing the issues and for deciding the matter and by
affording opportunity to all the parties. The High Court also passed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Appl No.49 of 2020
order in C.M.A.No.2354 of 2013, remanding the matter back to the First
Appellate Court with the direction to frame all the issues and decide the
Appeal Suit on merits and in accordance with law by affording
opportunities to the parties.
4.This Court is of the considered opinion that doubts raised in the
Review Petition are mostly relatable to the factual disputes which cannot
be entertained in the Review Petition. The scope of Review under
Section 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., is limited and only in the event of error
apparent, the Courts are empowered to review the order and the grounds
for appeal cannot be entertained as grounds for Review Petition and in
the present Review Petition, the learned counsel for the appellant made
an attempt to argue by the grounds raised in the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Review
Petition.
5.This apart, the trial before the First Appellate Court is in
progress and under these circumstances, reviewing the order would
cause prejudice to the interest of the parties and further lead to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Appl No.49 of 2020
prolongation of the litigations. Thus, the First Appellate Court has to get
along with the suit and dispose of as expeditiously as possible.
6.With the above observations, this petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2021
Pns
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Appl No.49 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Pns
Review Application No.49 of 2020
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
