Madras High Court
William Devapriyam @ William ... vs Tamilarasi on 19 February, 2021
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
William Devapriyam @ William (Died)
J.Balaji ... Petitioner
Vs.
Tamilarasi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Review Petition filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code
of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2020 made in S.A.
(MD)No.279 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed to review the judgment made by this
Court in S.A.(MD)No.279 of 2013, dated 17.02.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
2. The Review is sought mainly on the ground that the Court ought to have
granted the relief and there is no bar to grant the relief as against the defendant
alone, in view of the relationship between the the licensor and licensee. Hence,
the learned counsel sought to review the entire judgment itself.
3. On a perusal of the entire review petition, this Court is painful to note that
what was sought to be reviewed is the entire judgment of this Court, as appellate
Court, as if hearing the appeal once again as against the judgment already
rendered. It is well settled that the review of any judgment can be made only
when there is a discovery of new facts or documents came into possession recently
which play a major role in decision making and it was not produced at the time of
trial or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason.
4. The suit has been originally, laid claiming title over the property by the
plaintiff as against his own daughter, alleging that she is only a lessesee and the
allegation that though the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff's
mother, the entire consideration has been paid by the plaintiff. Therefore, he is
entitled for declaration. The Courts below and also this Court have elaborately,
dealt with the allegations of the plaintiff and found that the contention of the
plaintiff is not correct and dismissed the suit for declaration and also recovery of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
possession. The manner in which the case was projected, merely indicates that the
plaintiff infact tried to exclude other legal heirs viz., his own brothers and sisters
from claiming any share in the property, which has been negatived by this Court.
5. The pendente lite purchaser is the present review petitioner and he has
purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. Now, he seeks to set aside
the entire judgment. Such application is nothing, but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and the same deserves to
be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed. When the Court is
about to impose heavy costs, Mr.A.Arumugam, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the application is filed only at the instance of his client
and imposing such costs will create a bad impression upon the lawyers and pleads
not to impose any costs. Considering his request and he is also one of the fair
lawyers appearing before this Court, this Court restrains itself from imposing any
costs.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
http://www.judis.nic.in
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.49 of 2020
19.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
