Madras High Court
Sivasubramanian vs S.Angammal on 25 February, 2021
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.P.(MD) No. 4462 of 2019
in REV.APLC(MD) No.SR14285 of 2019
Sivasubramanian ... Petitioner/Petitioner
vs.
Kandasamy Gounder (dead)
Selvammal (dead)
Gurusamy (dead)
1.S.Angammal
2.A.Ramasamy
3.S.Suresh Kumar
4.P.K.Subramanian
5.K.Mariammal
6.K.Rajachandrasekar
7.K.Muruganandam
8.K.Sivaparvathy ....Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P(MD).No.4462 of 2019: Petition filed under Section
5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 138 days in filing the above
Review Application.
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
PRAYER in Rev.Apl.(MD).No.SR14285 of 2019:This Review
Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C, to review the order
dated 11.06.2018 made in C.R.P(MD).No.2221 of 2015 and allow the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Devaraj
For R1 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R2 to R7 : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the
delay of 138 days in filing the above Review Application.
2.The petitioner / plaintiff has filed O.S.No.392 of 2007 for
declaration to declare the sale deed dated 17.06.1974 as null and void
and for other reliefs. The above suit was dismissed for default due to the
non appearance of the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner filed restoration
petition along with a petition to condone the delay of 1383 days in filing
the restoration petition. The Court below dismissed the condone delay
petition, against which, the petitioner filed CRP(MD).No.2221 of 2015.
This Court after considering various decisions on the aspect of delay,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
dismissed the above revision petition as devoid of merits holding that no
sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the above huge
delay of 1385 days except making vague averments accusing his
Advocate for the delay. Seeking to review the said order, the petitioner
has filed the present review application with the delay of 138 days.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has reiterated the
grounds raised in the revision petition.
4.The power of this Court in matters of review is very limited.
Such power can be exercised only when there is error apparent on the
face of the record or in the event an order is not reviewed, it would
amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, we may
usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in
Union of India, rep by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division
Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme
Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as
follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
"10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8)
SCC 320, [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others],
the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments
passed earlier has held as follows"
"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various
Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not
that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an
error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition
through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments,
a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor
mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously
insufficient......."
In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid down the principles as under:
"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere
disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the
ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is
already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled
to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles:
20.Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds
of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute:
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-
(i). Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;
(ii).Mistake or error apparent on the face of record;
(iii).Any other sufficient reason.
The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius &
others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India
Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013)
8 SC 275.
20.2.When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii).Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii).Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv).Review is not maintainable, unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine its
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v).A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected
but lies only for patent error.
(vi).The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii).The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out and
searched.
(viii).The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix).Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived."
5. Applying the said legal principles to the facts of the present
case, if the grounds of review are analysed, this Court finds no error
apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed. The revision
petition itself was filed against the dismissal of the condone delay
petition to condone the delay of 1385 days in filing the restoration
petition to restore the suit which was dismissed for default.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
6. This Court in the above revision petition has categorically held
that the petitioner has made vague averments accusing his Advocate for
the delay and the same does not inspire the confidence of this Court as it
is the contention of the first respondent that the office of the Advocate of
the petitioner is situated just 3 kilometers away from his residence and
further stating that his communication cannot be cited as a reason for the
delay. This Court had dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merits.
In the present review application, the petitioner has once again raised the
same grounds which were raised in the revision petition. The petitioner
cannot be permitted to raise the same grounds under the garb of review.
The reason stated for the delay of 138 days in filing the review
application is that the clerk of the counsel on record misplaced the order
copy and it was mingled with other bundles. In my opinion such a reason
has been stated in a very routine manner. Therefore, I am not inclined to
condone the delay.
7.Accordingly, C.M.P(MD) No.4462 of 2019 is dismissed.
Consequently, Rev.APLC(MD) No.SR14285 of 2019 is rejected at SR
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
stage itself. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is always open to him to
file an appeal against the order passed in the revision petition, if he so
desires.
25.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
msa
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 District Munsif
Ottanchathiram
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU,J
msa
C.M.P.(MD) No. 4462 of 2019
in REV.APLC(MD) No.SR14285 of 2019
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
