Madras High Court
S.Yesudhas ... Review vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 November, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Review Application(MD)No.52 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2020
S.Yesudhas ... Review Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the District Collector,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil,
Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaran Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Secretary cum Commissioner,
Ministry of Forest and Environments,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
3.The Conservator of Forests,
Kanyakumari District at Head Quarters
of Vadasery,
Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District at Head Quarters
of Vadasery,
Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
5.The District Social Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District at Head Quarters
at Vadasery, Nagercoil 1,
Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the
judgment and decree, dated 26.08.2019, made in S.A(MD)No.400 of 2018,
on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner :No Appearance
For Respondents :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate
****
ORDER
Seeking review of the judgment delivered by this Court, dated
26.08.2019, made in S.A(MD)No.400 of 2018, the present Review
Application has been filed.
2.Despite when the matter was called on 27.10.2021 and subsequently
on 29.10.2021, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, this
Court directed the matter to be posted today, i.e., on 01.11.2021, under the
caption "for dismissal". Even today, i.e., on 01.11.2021, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Review Application is liable to
be dismissed for non-prosecution.
3.This Court is unable to find any error apparent on the face of the
record. Based on the pleadings and records and the grounds raised by the
appellant in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal was dismissed
4.None of the ground raised by the petitioner can be brought under
Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court and the
Honourable Supreme Court have held in several judgments that review
cannot be an alternative remedy for an appeal. In everyone of the grounds
raised in the review petition, the petitioner is requesting this Court to revisit
and reappraise the evidence to decide the issues once again on merits. This
Court has already observed, while disposing of the Second Appeal, that the
appellant claimed title to the suit property by adverse possession. It is
further observed that the appellant himself produced documents showing the
Government exercising their right of ownership. This Court also noticed
that the petitioner has successfully protected his possession showing the
pendency of litigation for more than two decades. Yet another attempt is
made by the review petitioner to keep his claim over the property of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Government alive with ulterior motive.
5.In view of the concurrent judgments of the Courts below and the
final verdict given by this Court in the Second Appeal, this Court finds no
merits and the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case or any legal
ground to review the judgment. Accordingly, the Review Application is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
01.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
cmr/tmg/ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
cmr/tmg/ps
Review Application (MD)No.52 of 2020
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
