Madras High Court
S.K.Meenakshi Sundaram vs M.N.Padmanabhan on 20 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.12811 of 2019
S.K.Meenakshi Sundaram ..Appellant
Vs.
M.N.Padmanabhan ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(w) of
C.P.C., against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 26.11.2018 made in
I.A.No.193 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned
Second Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Zeenath Begum
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The Fair and Decreetal order dated 26.11.2018 made in
I.A.No.193 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned
Second Additional District Court, Salem, is under challenge in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit and the respondents
instituted a suit for Possession and the appellant filed a suit for
cancellation of sale deed. The trial court delivered a common judgment
on 10.8.2017. The plaintiff herein filed a Review Petition under Section
114 and 151 of C.P.C., to review the order passed by the trial Court on
10.8.2017 in O.S.NO.19 of 2011. The said Interlocutory Application to
review the judgment was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
mainly contended that the trial Court has committed an error with regard
to the payment of balance sale consideration along with the interest. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
respondents deliberately withdraw the balance sale consideration and
therefore, the respondents are liable to compensate the appellant by
paying interest at the rate of 12% per annum. With this grievance, the
Review Application was filed. The trial Court considered the scope of
the Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., and further,
considered the nature of grounds taken by the appellant for reviewing
the judgment and rejected the application.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the power of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., is certainly limited. If there is
an error apparent on record, then alone, the Court which passed the
judgment, can review its own order and all other grounds raised on
merits are to be adjudicated only in an appeal and not by filing a Review
Petition. The scope of review has now been well settled and adjudication
or re-appreciation of the grounds are impressible in a review application.
5. Considering the grounds taken in the review application by the
appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion the the trial Court has
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
rightly rejected the review application and there is no infirmity or
perversity as such. However, the appellant is at liberty to take all the
grounds in the appeal, which has already been filed against the judgment
dated 10.8.2017. In other words, the appellant may raise all the grounds
including the grounds raised the Review Petition in the appeal suit.
6. With these observations, the Fair and Decreetal order dated
26.11.2018 made in I.A.No.193 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2011 on the
file of the learned Second Additional District Court, Salem, stands
confirmed and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.01.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
To
1. The Learned Second Additional District Court,
Salem.
2.The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
A.E.Section,
High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.2637 of 2019
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
