Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs Karuppaiah on 22 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Rev. Aplc(MD)Nos.18 and 19 of 2020
(1)Rev. Aplc(MD)No.18 of 2020:-
Perumal (Died)
1.Muthulakshmi
2.Ramesh
3.Rajmohan
4.Thamodharan
5.Muralidharan : Petitioners/Appellants
(Cause Title accepted, vide court
order dated 08.01.2020 made in
CMP No.9906 of 2019 in Rev. Aplc.
(MD)No.SR.64251 of 2019)
Vs.
Karuppaiah : Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 r/w
Rule 1 & 2 and Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review
the petition as against the order in S.A(MD)No.884 of 2003, dated
25.02.2019 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(2)Rev. Aplc(MD)No.19 of 2020:-
Perumal (Died)
1.Muthulakshmi
2.Ramesh
3.Rajmohan
4.Thamodharan
5.Muralidharan : Petitioners/Appellants
(Cause title accepted, vide court
order dated 08.01.2020 made in
CMP No.9906 of 2019 in Rev. Aplc.
(MD)No.SR.64251 of 2019)
Vs.
1)Karuppaiah
2)Kalaimani : Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 r/w
Rule 1 & 2 and Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review
the petition as against the order in S.A(MD)No.785 of 2008, dated
25.02.2019 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ramu
For Respondents : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
COMMON ORDER
These Review Applications are directed against the
common judgement passed by this court in S.A(MD)Nos.884 of
2003 and 785 of 2008, dated 25.02.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.The case of the petitioners in THE Review Application
(MD)No.18 of 2020 is that the husband of the 1 st petitioner Perumal
filed the suit O.S No.281 of 2004 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai for the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties
against the respondent herein. The learned Additional District
Munsif, Pudukkottai, by judgment, dated 27.06.2005 dismissed the
suit. Against which, the 1st petitioner's husband preferred an appeal
in AS No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Pudukkottai, which was also dismissed on 17.07.2007. Aggrieved
over the same, Second Appeal was preferred before this Court.
Before arguing in the Second Appeal, the husband of the 1 st
petitioner was expired on 05.01.2019. However, the Second Appeal
was disposed, on 25.02.2019. Since the petitioners are not brought
on record as legal heirs of the deceased Perumal, the petitioners
preferred review application against the order passed in the second
appeal.
3.The case of the petitioners in the Review Application
(MD)No.19 of 2020 is that the husband of the 1 st petitioner Perumal
filed the suit O.S No.218 of 2004 on the file of the Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai, for the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties
against the respondents herein. The learned Additional District
Munsif, Pudukkottai, by judgment, dated 27.06.2005 dismissed the
suit. Against which, the 1st petitioner's husband preferred an
appeal in AS No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Pudukkottai, which was also dismissed, on 17.07.2007. Aggrieved
over the same, Second Appeal was preferred before this Court.
Before arguing in the Second Appeal, the husband of the 1 st
petitioner was expired, on 05.01.2019. However, the Second Appeal
was disposed, on 25.02.2019. Since the petitioners are not brought
on record as legal heirs of the deceased appellant Perumal, the
petitioners preferred review application against the order passed in
the second appeal.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/appellants submitted that it was not brought to the
notice of this court about the death of the appellant Perumal, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
expired on 05.01.2019 even before the final argument of the second
appeal on 10.01.2019 and it is settled law that when either the
appellant or the respondent died before the conclusion of the final
argument, the legal heirs might have been brought on record for
effective adjudication and in this case, Ex.B2 clearly shows that the
possession of the disputed land had been handed over to the
petitioners/appellants on the date of exchange deed itself, but it
was not properly appreciated by this Court at the time of passing of
the judgment in the second appeal and hence, the judgment passed
by this court in the second appeal may be reviewed. For that, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants submitted
the following rulings:-
(1)Unreported decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amba
Bai and others Vs. Gopal and others
(Appeal (Civil) 4156of 1998, dated
08.05.2001.
(2)1995 SCC (5) 115
(N.P.Thirugnanam (D) Lrs Vs. Dr.R.Jagan
Mohan Rao & others): and
(3)2001(5) ALD 484 ( Golla
Krishna Murthy Vs. Golla Yellaiah (Died)
By Lrs and others.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/respondents submitted that before pronouncing
the judgment, the death of the appellant Perumal was not brought
to the knowledge of this court, hence, this court correctly passed
the judgment. Further, there is no error or mistake in the judgment
of this court and hence, it is not necessary to review the judgment
passed by this court. For that, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted the following rulings:-
(M.Poornachandran and another Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and others):
(2)2020(2) CTC 142 ( M.Karuppuraj
Vs. M.Ganesan);
(3)2016(1)MWN (Civil) 403
( Velamman Vs. M.Palaniswamy);
(4).CDJ 2013 APHC 986 (Annam
Uttarudu (died) by Lrs and others Vs. Annam
Venkateswara); and
(5).2015(3) TLNJ 426 (Civil)
(K.Narayanaswamy Pillai Vs.
Smt.Kannammal)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.In this case, after hearing the argument of both sides,
the second appeals were reserved for judgment on 10.01.2019 and
the common judgment was pronounced on 25.02.2019. In the
review applications, the petitioners stated that the appellant
Perumal died on 05.01.2019 and hence, the common judgment
passed by this court in the second appeal will not bind them. It is to
be noted here that till 25.02.2019, said fact was not brought to the
knowledge of this court that the appellant Perumal died on
05.01.2019.
8.Rule (1) of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, reads
as follows:-
(1)Any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a)by a decree or order from which
an appeal is allowed, but from which no
appeal has been preferred.
(b)by a decree or order from which
no appeal is allowed, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(c)by a decision on a reference from
a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at
the time when the decree was passed or order
made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the order.
9.If the review application is found to be lack of the above
said ingredients, then it is liable to be dismissed.
10.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Moran Mar vs. Mar
Poulose [1954 SC 526: LNIND 1954 SC 100], has enumerated
the following three principles for entertaining a review application:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(i)Discovery of new and important
matter or evidence, which after the exercise
of due diligence, was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or
made;
(ii)Mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record;
(iii)For any other sufficient reasons.
11.In the judgment reported in 2009(5) CTC 365 in the
case of Inderchand Jain (D) through Lrs vs. Motilan (D)
through L.Rs., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
“25.The High Court had rightly
noticed the review jurisdiction of the Court,
which is as under:
“The law on the subject - exercise of
power of review, as propounded by the Apex
Court and various other High Courts may be
summarized as hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(i) Review proceedings are not by
way of Appeal and have to be strictly confined
to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1,
C.P.C.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised
when some mistake or error apparent on the
fact of record is found. But error on the face of
record must be such an error which must
strike one on mere looking at the record and
would not require any long drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may be
conceivable be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision was
erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be
exercised for any sufficient reason which is
wide enough to include a misconception of fact
or law by a Court or even an Advocate.
(v) An Application for review may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine
“actus curiae neminem gravabit”
12.In the judgment reported in (2010)2 MLJ 1177 in the
case of M.Jagadeesan vs. K.Selvam and others, this court has
held as follows:-
“27.Be that as it may, on a careful
consideration of respective contentions, though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
this Court is A Court Of Record with plenary
powers, yet this Court is of the considered view
that the power of Review is restricted under
Code of Civil Procedure and by means of
review substantial reliefs cannot be asked for
and in the grab/guise of review, this Court
cannot rehear the parties on the point of law
afresh and also there can be no reappraisal and
re-appreciation of evidence based on the
overall assessment and facts of the matters in
issue and moreover the reappraisal of entire
evidence on record for finding out the errors
will amount to exercise of Appellate
Jurisdiction, which is not permissible in law and
viewed in that perspective, the review
applications are not maintainable and they
fail.”
13.In the light of the decisions cited above, I do not find
any grounds to review the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
14.In the result, both Review Application are dismissed
without costs.
22.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
To,
1.The Principal District Munsif,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Pudukkottai.
Rev. Aplc.(MD)Nos.18 and 19 of 2020
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
