Madras High Court
L.Anadal (Died) vs K.Periyasamy (Died) on 19 February, 2021
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
1.L.Anadal (died)
2.L.Sri Krishna
3.Geetha Gopalkrishnan
4.Padmini Narendran
5.Srimathi Sridharan ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1.K.Periyasamy (died)
2.S.Rahma Bibi
3.P.Santhanam
4.J.High Court Petchi
5.P.Chellam (Died)
6.C.Packiayam
7.P.Balakrishnan
8.A.Meenakshi
9.Kamala Santhanam
10.Uma
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
11.Prabhakaran
12.Nivetha
13.Nithya ...Respondents
(Respondents 3 to 8 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 1st
respondent vide order of this Court dated 16.03.2020 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.
2207 to 2209 of 2018 of 2020 in Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.88 of 2011)
(Respondent No.9 is brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 1 st
respondent vide Court order dated 16.03.2020 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.2847 of
2020 in Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.88 of 2011)
(Respondents 10 to 13 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased
5th respondent vide Court order dated 16.03.2020 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.2849
of 2020 in Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.88 of 2011)
PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1
and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 15.04.2010 made in
S.A.(MD).No.815 of 2007, on the file of the Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran
For R-4, R-6 to
R-13 : Mr.Georgeraja
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R-2 : No Appearance
2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
For R-1, R-3
& R-5 : Died
ORDER
This application has been filed to review the decree and judgment of
this Court in S.A.(MD).No.815 of 2007, dated 15.04.2010.
2. The main ground alleged in the application for review the judgment
is that the Court has not considered the evidence properly and the additional
documents are also not considered by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is
required to be reviewed.
3. It is not in dispute that as against the judgment and decree of this
Court dated 15.04.2010, a Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil)..../201- CC
17295/2010 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble
Apex Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.
4. It is well settled that a decision can be reviewed on the ground
of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or
could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, or
an account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
for any other sufficient reason, the application would be maintainable to
review the judgment.
5. Therefore, such view of the matter, the review cannot be
maintainable. As a matter of right, the entire review application makes it very
clear that the grievance of the applicant is that the Court has not considered the
evidence properly. If such application is entertained, the same will amount to
sitting over the judgment of this Court in a Review Application. Hence, I do not
find any merit in the Review Application and the same stands dismissed. No
costs.
19.02.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
tsg
To
The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
tsg
order made in
REV.APLC.(MD)No.88 of 2011
Dated
19.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
